This story is part of Going with the Flow, a series that dives into how restoring nature can help with B.C.’s flood problems — and what’s stopping us from doing it.

Just two generations ago, the Squamish estuary — called Skwelwil’em in the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh sníchim (the Squamish language) — remained somewhat peaceful in the face of great change. 

The settler village of Squamish was built and growing in the estuary, on the territory of the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw (Squamish Nation). A railroad was built to Vancouver, and old-growth logging was at its height. Still, amid these colonial disruptions, the estuary was home to salmon, a place for Sḵwx̱wú7mesh to fish and be close to the water of Átl’ḵa7tsem (Howe Sound).

But boundless development and resource extraction continued and the town chipped away at the estuary.

In an example of bulldozing over Indigenous Rights in the name of industry — in the most literal sense — the estuary was dredged in the 1970s by BC Rail for a proposed coal port project without any consultation with the Squamish Nation. A five-kilometre-long spit was built that blocked water and dried up part of the estuary. 

The federal government wound up rejecting the proposal — so for about 30 years a massive pile of dredged soil remained abandoned right on top of Skwelwíl̓em. A portion of the estuary, once filled with lush grasses and calm water, was left barren and brown for decades and salmon numbers began to decrease.

Now, the Squamish Nation is co-leading an effort to restore the estuary with the Squamish River Watershed Society and Fisheries and Oceans Canada in a coalition called Restore the Shore, which seeks to “save this vital ecosystem and right historical wrongs.”

This year, the group took on its biggest task yet: removing a fifth of the spit that has blocked juvenile salmon exiting the river from accessing the estuary. The project has been years in the making and has brought together at-times disparate community interests. 

Removing the spit “opens the lungs of the river,” Sxwíxwtn (pronounced S—WAY-wah-tin), whose English name is Wilson Williams, told The Narwhal from his office where he serves as a councillor and spokesperson for the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw.

“It brings back the natural being of it.”

Sxwíxwtn’s name comes from the Squamish village Yekw’ápsem, which means “located in the Squamish Valley along the Squamish River,” he said. His uncle Sxwíxwtn was the last person to carry this name during the 1850s, until he received it in 2019.

“Names are verb-based, not noun-based,” he explains. “Squamish names are directly tied to our land. They describe the territory, what happens there.”

“When one receives an ancestral name they continue to learn, and protect the sacred nature of the name — but more importantly, protect who we are as Squamish Peoples and our culture, traditions, legends and language.”

How Squamish’s community broke down barriers to bring back salmon

The District of Squamish is among the fastest growing communities in B.C., with the population doubling since the early ’90s. All of those extra people living around the estuary has meant navigating multiple competing interests, balancing the desires of newcomers with the rights of the First People and the need to save salmon from extinction while bringing Skwelwil’em back to life. 

There’s the Squamish Nation, which has inherent rights to the estuary and intrinsic relationship with salmon. Then there’s the Restore the Shore coalition, which has a goal of improving salmon health. Then you’ve got city businesses, like Squamish terminals, which transports cargo, and is concerned about changes in sedimentation spit removal might bring about. And then there are the residents who comprise that booming population, many of whom are drawn here for the outdoor recreation opportunities. While the spit was disastrous for salmon, it was a boon for kiteboarders, providing an exceptional launch point.

After years of planning, engaging with the public and getting permits, Restore the Shore finally broke open the barrier this year. Between January and April, they dismantled 300 metres of the spit. The coalition, funded by the Coastal Restoration Fund, Pacific Salmon Foundation, Habitat Conservation Trust Fund and the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, is currently monitoring for environmental impacts, with plans to remove another 550 metres in October. 

The hope is that easier access to safe waters will enhance juvenile salmon’s health and well-being.

Because of the spit, salmon have been “shot out into the ocean before they’re ready,” Patricia Heintzman, spokesperson for the Squamish River Watershed Society, told The Narwhal. 

“What they need to do is spend three or four months in the estuary where they saltify, they get strong, their scales get more resilient and there’s a buffet of nutritional things for them.” 

Like many fish populations in B.C., salmon populations in the Squamish River have declined in recent years, especially Chinúkw (Chinook salmon). According to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (previously the Department of Fisheries and Oceans), between 1962 and 1972 more than 17,000 Chinook salmon returned to the Squamish River each year on average. By the 1980s, they counted below 500 Chinook. After decades of restoration the watershed society said annual returns have increased to 5,000 Chinook. Wilson said fishermen in the estuary tell him they still don’t see many fish. 

Restoration work began back in 1999, with the Squamish Nation partnering with the Squamish River Watershed Society and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to restore the estuary, in the beginnings of the Restore the Shore initiative. 

First, they had to tackle the dredge pile, restoring about 15 hectares of estuary that had been buried — equivalent to about 28 football fields. They restored and constructed tidal channels, replanted vegetation like eelgrass, and constructed pedestrian bridges. In 2007, the estuary was designated as Skwelwil’em Squamish Estuary Wildlife Management Area under the Provincial Wildlife Act. Then, the biggest hurdle: removing at least a portion of the spit. 

Salmon are top of mind in all this work — but since Chinook have a four-year life cycle, the community will have to wait that long to truly see what impact the spit removal had on this generation.

Squamish estuary provides over $12 million in ecosystem services every year: report

Estuaries are calm bodies of water where the freshwater of a river flows into a body of saltwater, and are highly productive ecosystems known for their biodiversity. Skwelwil’em supports steelhead trout, herring and five species of sts’u’kwi7, or salmon. Those salmon are sustenance for other animals in the estuary, like eagles and bears, as well as southern resident killer whales and humpbacks.

But estuaries aren’t just good for animals. The Squamish Nation partially funded a 2021 study that found the estuary provides $12.6 million every year in ecosystem goods and services, such as water filtration and flood mitigation. The report emphasized the findings were not exhaustive and didn’t quantify cultural value, since there is no adequate way to put a monetary value on culture.

The study was commissioned by the Squamish River Watershed Society and researched by an independent contractor, Elise Pullar. It builds off of a 2015 study commissioned by the David Suzuki Foundation, which concluded the Howe Sound watersheds provide somewhere between $800 million and $4.7 billion in ecosystem services.

“[The report] is really meant to be a conversation starter,” opposed to providing definitive answers, Heintzman said. 

She said she sees the limitations and even the dangers in quantifying nature in a “materialistic” way. But if no attempt at valuation is made, then land can be essentially viewed as “worthless” economically, she argued.

“If we don’t start reevaluating or understanding the value of [nature] in its completeness, then we’re in danger of compromising the future,” she said.

To Sxwíxwtn, the report furthers what “the Squamish people have always known.”

“The land and water must be protected and respected. We must work in step with our lands and waters,” he said. 

“If we don’t take care of the natural world, it won’t take care of us.”

The cultural component is important as Squamish people reclaim their connection to that part of the territory, councillor Joyce Williams wrote in an opinion piece in 2021.

“As our lands heal and are revitalized, so is our culture and connection to it,” she wrote. “This connection will continue to strengthen once again with continued and improved recognition of the importance of estuaries for the community as a whole.”

From disagreement to understanding

Sxwíxwtn said the work to remove the spit has been a “great initiative” and there has been “mutual respect” between all the partners, in a stark contrast to how the spit was built without any consultation with the Squamish Nation. 

“If proper consultation had occurred … there would have been a stronger vision in regards to protecting the natural habitat and resources. In this case, our salmon life cycles,” Sxwíxwtn said.

“They need to hear our voice.”

But this work has also come with challenges. For windsport enthusiasts, the Squamish Spit was a world-class launching point and some felt this wasn’t being adequately considered in the removal process. A petition from 2020 signed by nearly 3,000 people described the spit as a premiere kiteboarding location and a place where professional athletes and Olympians train. Restore the Shore proposed leaving an island at the end of the spit to be used as a launch point, but the windsports society pushed for some kind of road access to be built.When Restore the Shore received approval to remove the spit in January, leaving an island for kiteboarders to use, the president of the windsports society, Sean Millington, told The Narwhal their membership was “not happy” because they were still unsure if their access to the water would be inhibited.But the Squamish Windsports Society has ultimately arrived at a place where they support the Nation and its efforts to bring back salmon, and want to move ahead in partnership.

For the first time this summer, kiteboarders tried a new system of boating to what they’re calling Spit Island. Its members pitched in to buy a boat for the society. After a summer of accessing Spit Island by boat, Millington said members have been pleasantly surprised to see it’s not as difficult to get to the island as expected. He said people were more worried when it was all “theoretical,” but are reassured now that they see an “actual solution in place.”

“The feedback that I’m getting from most people when I talk to them is, ‘This actually went pretty well. It wasn’t as bad as I thought it might be,’ ” he said. “The feedback has been mostly positive.”

A five-time Canadian Football League all-star, and two-time Grey Cup Champion, Millington is someone whose life has been devoted to athletics. He has been windsurfing for 20 years, and started kiteboarding in 2017. He became the society’s president in January.

Millington emphasized the society supports the Squamish Nation, and that they signed a memorandum of understanding. He said he knows the future of the estuary isn’t the windsports society’s decision.

“We do believe in the cooperative and understanding relationship that we’ve managed to arrive at, even if there have been times when our goals and their goals weren’t necessarily lined up,” he explained. 

Millington said he learned from the challenge of bringing together “a whole bunch of diverse opinions.”

“It’s really important, in that process, to listen to what everyone is saying and do your best to understand where each of the parties is coming from.” 

Despite being situated on Howe Sound, the city residents have very limited access to the water; the shore is mostly dominated by industry. Millington hopes there is still a chance a land bridge will be built to the island to make access easier — but he’d only want to see a land bridge with the approval of the Squamish Nation. 

“We fully back the Nation,” he said. 

To Edith Tobe, executive director of the Squamish River Watershed Society, collaboration is the story, she argued emphatically. 

Tobe said overcoming challenges and disagreements required patience and building trust. 

“It’s been very interesting to me, because it is a community where there are a lot of disparate interests,” she said. “And there’s room for everybody.”

Sxwíxwtn said the Nation has worked closely with the windsports society and other stakeholders. Open dialogue will remain important as the coalition continues working to restore the estuary, he added.

“I’m a firm believer in building a strong relationship, first and foremost, as a foundation,” he said. “That will bring us to that mutual understanding.”

Sxwíxwtn said this is an important moment for the Nation to be making decisions on their own territory and bring knowledge to the table.

“We’re in the room now to share what we can respectfully, and share the stories. We have strong legends and they all connect to the waterways, the mountains, the animals. And they always come back to survival, perseverance and strength.”

‘We can’t engineer our way out of problems’

The Squamish River naturally oscillates back and forth, but that movement was halted by the spit, and the river stopped depositing as much sediment to the estuary.

Tidal marshes naturally accumulate sediment and vegetation, which can slow down water, decrease wave height and attenuate wave energy, biologist Eric Balke, coordinator of the south coast conservation land management program with Ducks Unlimited, told The Narwhal. If you cut off the estuary from its sediment source, you have “inhibited the capacity” of that ecosystem, he said. In the face of sea level rise, that means tidal marshes could disappear.

“If we lose a lot of these tidal ecosystems that protect us from sea level rise, then that potentially will make us even more vulnerable to flooding,” he said. 

Balke believes that more research is needed, but theoretically, allowing more water and sediment flow to the estuary should support its resilience.

“The realignment of the spit may, over the long term, actually help protect the community from sea level rise,” he said.

Heintzman hopes restoring the estuary will encourage people to consider nature-based climate solutions, which means empowering the natural processes of nature to mitigate the impacts of climate change. For example, the estuary can act as a “big sponge” and absorb water to protect the coastline from storm surge, coastal flooding and sea level rise, she said. 

Nature-based climate solutions include protecting and enhancing forests, wetlands and grasslands that sequester a lot of carbon.

“We can’t engineer our way out of problems,” she said. “[Engineered solutions] are very, very expensive and they don’t fulfill the very complex and multifaceted role that nature does.”

An estuary can provide the same flood protection as a dike while also providing food, habitat, tourism and carbon sequestration while filtering air and water, she said.

“It provides all this value added,” she said.

The report commissioned by the Squamish River Watershed Society recommends that the district of Squamish develop a natural asset management framework and prioritize nature-based solutions over engineered solutions to climate risks. It also suggests the district establish the estuary as a carbon sink on the carbon market.

In an emailed statement, the district’s mayor Karen Elliott said work is underway to develop a natural asset management strategy and the district already prioritizes restoring natural assets over engineered assets “where possible.” 

As for pursuing the possibility of earning carbon credits from the estuary, Elliott only said the district is paying attention to the carbon credit market and “watching closely.” She said no existing methodologies would support claiming carbon credits for conserving the estuary.

“Any credits would be a result of re-establishing wetland or salt marsh areas, or conserving areas that are at risk of development,” she said.

Elliott emphasized the difficult nature of putting monetary value on nature and said the district has not verified the methodologies used in the watershed society’s report to assign specific dollar values to the estuary. 

“We do, however, recognize the importance of recognizing and protecting our natural assets,” she added.

For Sxwíxwtn, it comes back to the culture and relationships that place can foster. When he was a young child, his father regularly brought him down to the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Staḵw (Squamish River) to fish. That peaceful time by the river with his father is a time he cherishes. Now that his father is older, he provides fish to his father, just like his father did for him when he was a child. He wants to ensure Chinook and other salmon across the territory are healthy for future generations.

“Our ancestors and our past leadership set us up for a strong future,” Sxwíxwtn said. “Our people are always at the forefront.”

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.

After a campaign with few surprises where candidates largely avoided discussing the environment, Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives won the 2022 Ontario election with a majority Thursday.

The result is a Progressive Conservative government that won fewer votes but managed to secure more seats than it did in 2018 — and a seemingly rudderless opposition. Though final seat counts weren’t available by publication time, a diminished NDP saw the resignation of their longtime leader, Andrea Horwath. The Liberals, too, saw leader Steven Del Duca step down after they failed to achieve the comeback they had hoped for.

Speaking to a raucous crowd who chanted, “Ford more years,” the re-elected premier beamed standing alongside his wife, Karla during his victory speech.

“This proves our approach is the right one,” Ford said, reiterating his commitments to invest in new highway projects — including two running through Ontario’s Greenbelt — and seek the minerals needed for electric vehicles in Ontario’s Far North. The province is “blessed” with natural resources, he said.

“We’re building that road to the Ring of Fire,” he said. “We have the critical minerals the whole world is after.”

Even though a deadly derecho storm — a type of extreme weather event expected to become more common due to the climate crisis — swept through southern Ontario mid-election, the race focused far more on affordability than the environment. Which might be a preview of the next four years too, given the Ford government’s environmental track record. 

It wouldn’t be the first time concerns around high costs crowded out the question of how to lower emissions and conserve the environment, said Andrea Olive, an associate professor of political science and geography at the University of Toronto Mississauga, whose work focuses on biodiversity.

“Inflation is crazy and people are worried,” she said. And when things get expensive, people tend to be focused on short-term needs like the cost of food and lose sight of long-term ones, even though there’s an economic argument to be made for strong environmental policy. “When the economy is bad, it’s bad for the environment. People feel like they can’t afford to care about it.” 

Meanwhile, the election results will also leave Ontario’s two main opposition parties, the Liberals and the NDP, in a state of uncertainty. NDP leader Andrea Horwath led her party to its second round as the official opposition — in the face of pushback within her caucus — she stepped down Thursday night, saying it was time for her to pass the reins to someone else. So did Liberal Leader Steven Del Duca, who failed to secure a seat in the legislature, or a significant number of new seats anywhere else.

Both parties have historically pushed for more action on the environment than the Progressive Conservatives, but leadership crises will almost certainly make it harder for them to keep doing so in the short term. 

All that chaos doesn’t mean nothing is going to happen on the environment front: during the campaign, the parties all agreed that a push for more electric vehicles, for example, was a good idea. And although they differed on how they want to reduce emissions and by how much, all say they’re planning to do it.

Ontario Green Party leader Mike Schreiner, who held his seat, issued a plea Thursday night for the Progressive Conservatives to chart a different course on climate.

“At this critical moment in time I ask you to consider the financial, the economic and the climate implications of paving over the places we love — the farmland that feeds us and the nature that surrounds us,” Schreiner said.

“I say this as a fellow Ontarian. The storms, weather, floods we have experienced during the campaign alone… shows what’s at stake.”

Here’s a breakdown of what it all means, and a few things you can expect during Doug Ford’s second term.

What the Ontario election results mean for Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass

The Tories’ big plans for building new highways through Ontario’s Greenbelt, Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass, were a hallmark of their first four years in government. They’ve made it clear that they intend to use their second term to get those projects closer to the finish line, although critics have raised concerns about how they could harm protected areas, endangered species habitat and farmland, and also increase greenhouse gas emissions. 

For the 413 at least, that might be easier said than done. In 2021, the Government of Canada announced that it would step in and subject the controversial project to the federal impact assessment process, effectively delaying Highway 413 indefinitely. Construction on the Bradford Bypass, however, is set to begin later this year. The federal government has twice declined to intervene on that project. 

The Progressive Conservatives have also proposed a myriad of other highway projects, including a twinning project on Highway 17 in Northern Ontario and a widening of Highway 417 in Ottawa.

What the Ontario election results mean for greenhouse gas emissions

The Progressive Conservatives ran in 2022 on the least ambitious plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of all the mainstream parties in Ontario. They committed to reaching Ontario’s Paris Agreement goal of cutting emissions to 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. The other parties were pushing to do more by 2030 and then aim for net-zero, which isn’t in the Tories’ long-range plans.

So what does Ford’s vision for emissions reduction look like? For starters, it’ll definitely mean no cap-and-trade system — the Tories cut that in 2018 and have replaced it with a far weaker industrial carbon pricing plan. A voluntary clean energy credit program is in the works, but unlikely to be as effective as cap-and-trade.

Instead, the governing party has said it wants to see more emissions reductions by increasing the amount of renewable content in gasoline, putting stricter standards on industry and helping steelmakers use cleaner technology. 

It’s not clear whether that’s going to work. The Progressive Conservatives are not on track to deliver the emissions reductions they promised, as the province’s auditor general reported last year, though the Tories have disputed this. They also haven’t delivered key aspects of their climate plan. In a report released in May, the non-profit Environmental Defence found that Ontario will miss its 2030 climate targets under the government’s current policies. 

What Doug Ford’s win means for farmland and the Greenbelt

Farmland became a development battleground during the Ford government’s first four years, and that shows no sign of stopping. It started with Ford saying he would open Ontario’s Greenbelt for development, then backing off — twice. He then eventually promised to compensate for fast-tracked projects by adding to the protected area, before releasing a proposed expansion plan that doesn’t add anything major.

Speaking of fast-tracked projects: the Progressive Conservatives have made generous use of an unappealable special land use power called a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO), which allows them to bypass local planning processes to kickstart development. That’s likely to continue: “We will never stop issuing MZOs,” said Steve Clark, who spent the last four years as Ford’s minister of municipal affairs, in 2021. (The other parties had all proposed various versions of reining in use of the orders, or getting rid of them altogether.)

The Tories’s rewrite of land use planning rules has also led to a series of votes at local councils over whether to open up more farmland for development. The government has said it’s seeking to increase the supply of housing and has pushed cities to expand outward to allow for more detached single-family homes. Environmentalists say that’s a bad idea, since farmland is an important carbon sink and plays a key role in local ecology. All three opposition parties had promised to focus on denser development in areas already set aside for new housing.

What the Ontario election results mean for renewable energy

The nuclear plant in Pickering, Ont., that provides one-sixth of Ontario’s grid will begin shutting down in 2024, leaving a massive void in the province’s electricity system, which is currently 94 per cent emissions free. The problem is, the Progressive Conservatives’ plan for replacing it relies mostly on natural gas-fired power plants, which it bought more of in 2020. That’s expected to erase a third of the emissions reductions Ontario brought about by phasing out coal. 

Renewable energy might have helped with that problem, except the Ford government cancelled over 700 clean energy programs soon after beginning its first term in 2018. More recently, however, Ford’s tune on renewable energy has changed: he said on the campaign trail that he “won’t be happy” until Ontario’s grid is completely clean, though his party didn’t offer a plan to get there.

The Tories have also sought to act on appetite from businesses to secure more clean power. The party is working on a strategy for harnessing hydrogen power and looking at battery storage for renewable energy. The Progressive Conservatives have also set up a panel aimed at energy transition, and are pledging to develop nuclear energy from small modular reactors, which aren’t yet in commercial use anywhere. For now, it’s unclear how much of a dent they might make. 

What Doug Ford’s win means for electric vehicles and the Ring of Fire

Ford has had a love-hate relationship with electric vehicles over the last four years. In 2018, his government pulled the plug on a program from the previous Liberal government, which provided up to $14,000 for buyers of electric vehicles. Then and since, Ford has maintained that the program only benefitted millionaires. 

The Tories also took requirements for electric-vehicle charging stations out of Ontario’s building code and removed some public ones that had already been installed. All told, electric-vehicle sales in Ontario dropped by more than half in 2019. 

In the 2022 election, the other parties proposed bringing back electric-vehicle rebates. Ford still isn’t into that, but he seems to have come around on electric vehicles generally: at the encouragement of automotive tycoon Frank Stonach, the government started an investment blitz aimed at making Ontario a manufacturing hub, a bid to invigorate the province’s flagging automobile sector. And the Tories have promised to make that strategy a major plank of its next four years. 

That being said, it’s complicated: the plan is heavily reliant on sourcing key minerals for electric vehicles from the Ring of Fire, an environmentally sensitive and remote region of Ontario’s Far North, where several First Nations have not consented to development. Even if the province does manage to pay for and build infrastructure needed to access the region, no one has verified whether the deposits there are worth the cost.

What Doug Ford’s win means for endangered species 

The Ontario government watered down protections for endangered species twice in the Progressive Conservatives’ first four years. One of those changes, for example, allowed industry to destroy endangered species habitat as long as they pay into a fund, which would theoretically be used to help the species thrive elsewhere, a concept critics call “pay to slay.” The Tories’ efforts to accelerate development also came sometimes at the cost of endangered species habitat, and the party has not announced any intentions of changing course.

If things continue as they are, the next four years will likely see a lot of “habitat loss,” which drives species decline, Olive said.

“It’s just so fundamentally misguided,” she said of the Progressive Conservative approach.

“It’s just worrisome that habitat loss is just happening at such a fast rate. Wetlands and all of that are just being totally destroyed in southern Ontario and then the answer is, well, they’ll just pay for it. It’s really sad.”

The Ontario election results mean upheaval for Liberals, NDP

Neither of the two biggest opposition parties were able to topple Ford. Olive said it’s a real failure on the part of the NDP and the Liberals to sell a compelling and environmentally responsible vision of Ontario’s future. 

“I think there’s a lot of fear among the opposition parties in Ontario that by going all in on a green agenda, they’re going to alienate a lot of voters, and that those aren’t going to be the issues that resonate with people,” she said. 

“I don’t often hear them talking about a green transition or a green economy, or nature-based solutions.”

In some cases, voters have shown an appetite for environmental policy. Federally, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals have at least talked about environmental issues more than most of their provincial counterparts, and they’ve lasted three elections, Olive said. The Ontario Liberal party also managed to hold on to power while winding down coal plants in the early 2000s. 

There might be any number of reasons why the Ontario Liberals and NDP chose a different approach this time around. But it probably didn’t help that the province is still recovering, in many ways, from two years and counting of the COVID-19 pandemic. For a while in 2020 and 2021, people were stuck at home and recognizing the importance of green spaces and environmental protection, but the public has generally moved on, Olive said. “[People] are just back to living their lives and being rather complacent, which is not necessarily a criticism, it’s what happens.” 

The real surprise Thursday night came from the NDP. Though exact seat counts weren’t available by publication time, it appeared the New Democrats had won enough seats to clinch the title of Ontario’s official opposition for a second time. They did so despite a spate of attacks from the Liberals and polls showing they were in danger of falling to third place.

But that wasn’t enough for the embattled leader, who resigned tearfully on election night after four tries at the premier’s seat. 

“The majority of Ontarians have not endorsed or supported the Conservative government,” Horwath told supporters in Hamilton, saying the Ford government would make the climate crisis worse. “Doug Ford needs to realize that… The majority of Ontarians did not vote for big highways to big houses that no one can afford.”

Already, Horwath and the NDP had been under fire for losing the support of some unions, mostly in the construction and building sector, to the Progressive Conservatives. But internally, as the Narwhal reported in April, some staffers have been frustrated with what they said was a focus on knee-jerk criticisms of Ford rather than truly connecting with voters. 

With Horwath stepping down, the party’s future is uncertain. She has no obvious successor. And with a chaotic process ahead as the party tries to choose one, it’s unclear how effective the NDP can really be in pushing its agenda, which includes more climate action and environmental protection than the Progressive Conservatives. 

The Liberals were even more shattered: leader Steven Del Duca resigned too Thursday night, despite saying in the days leading up to the election that he’d stay. And as results rolled in Thursday night, the Liberals fell short of the 12 seats needed to regain official party status in the legislature, which they lost in 2018. Del Duca himself failed to win his riding.

“As a party, I know we will re-double our efforts to build your trust,” said a deflated Del Duca.

The Ontario Green Party, meanwhile failed to increase its seat count Thursday. Leader Schreiner, who was widely praised on the campaign trail, comfortably re-secured his seat in Guelph, Ont. But that success didn’t translate into bigger gains.

In a heartbreaker for the party, Green candidate Matt Richter came within about 2,000 votes of a win in Parry Sound—Muskoka but lost to Progressive Conservative Graydon Smith. Though the Tories had held the riding since its creation in 1999, it had looked like Parry Sound—Muskoka might be ripe for a Green surge: incumbent MPP Norm Miller decided not to run again and the Liberals fired their candidate over a homophobic book he’d written.

Green deputy leader Dianne Saxe, however, failed to topple NDP incumbent Jessica Bell in the downtown Toronto riding of University—Rosedale. Saxe served as Ontario’s environmental commissioner before Ford axed her office in 2018 and, although she received a long list of endorsements, she had stiff competition in a riding where the Liberals are also competitive.

With files from Fatima Syed

Updated on June 2, 2022 at 11:00 p.m. ET: This story was updated to include more details about the election results and statements from the party leaders.

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

Two years after a catastrophic flood caused tens of millions of dollars in damage to homes and businesses in the Grand Forks area, the B.C. government and several timber companies are being sued on grounds that excessive logging caused the devastation. 

In a notice of civil claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court by Peter Waldmann, a lawyer specializing in class action lawsuits, B.C.’s Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, the major logging companies Interfor, Weyerhaeuser and Tolko, three First Nation-owned companies and pulp producer Mercer Celgar are accused of negligence for logging local forests too quickly, creating the conditions that caused the devastating flooding in May 2018.

The claim alleges that too much clear-cut logging occurred on lands higher up mountain slopes where deep snow packs can build, releasing torrents of water in the spring; many of the clear-cuts greatly exceeded size limits; road networks were excessive; too many trees were logged before previously logged forests had recovered sufficiently, and that all of this and more set the stage for the devastating flooding that began on May 8, 2018.

“The defendants’ overharvesting of timber resources has significantly increased the rate of sedimentation from their land, increased the stream flow into the Kettle Basin watershed and increased the frequency, duration and magnitude of major flooding events,” the civil claim alleges.

Three Grand Forks residents or family members of residents whose homes were either destroyed or seriously damaged during the flood are named as plaintiffs in the claim. It is expected that others whose homes, properties and livelihoods were disrupted by the flood will join as part of a broader class action or civil lawsuit in which damages are being sought.

The “proposed class” in the Grand Forks case are “all persons” living within 15 kilometres of the community whose homes, businesses, health or livelihoods were “lost or destroyed” in the extensive flooding.

Logging in the Kettle River watershed between 1965 and 2020. Grand Forks is located toward the southern border. Map: Commons BC

Of the three major logging companies named in the claim, Interfor’s operations are notably singled out. The company has by far the largest share of logging rights in the region, and owns and operates a sawmill in Grand Forks.

“The defendant, Interfor, has unsustainably clear-cut tens of thousands of hectares of land during the last several decades in the Kettle River basin and has extensively profited from the timber resources. This has increased the frequency, duration and magnitude of peak flows that resulted in the May 8-11, 2018 flooding event,” the claim alleges.

The Narwhal, which reported extensively on the human toll of the flooding and on allegations by Grand Forks residents and independent foresters and hydrologists that logging was behind the flooding, asked the company to respond and received a short email in reply. 

“We are aware of this claim and cannot provide much comment on pending litigation, except to say that Interfor has acted in accordance with its permits, licences and applicable regulations, and intends to defend itself fully,” said Xenia Kristos, Interfor’s chief counsel and corporate secretary.

Jennifer Houghton, one of the plaintiffs, had two feet of water in her home when flooding occurred in 2017. Worse flooding the following spring doubled the amount of water in her home, prompting the yoga teacher and local realtor to build a small home on wheels so that she could get it out of harm’s way if another flood occurred.

Jennifer Houghton on the steps of her unfinished tiny home with her two dogs in 2018. She planned to move her new home if spring runoffs threatened her property again in the future. Photo: Louis Bockner / The Narwhal

Houghton declined to comment on the civil suit on the advice of Waldmann. She did say that what has been filed with the court thoroughly captures what she and others believe are the relevant events that increased the severity of the floods and that upended her life and the lives of so many others in her community. 

“I think that the lawyers did a very thorough job of putting the filing together. I’ve put my faith in them,” Houghton told The Narwhal.

Next to Interfor, the provincial government itself is directly responsible for much of the logging that is alleged to have caused the horrendous flooding. BC Timber Sales is an arm of the Ministry of Forests that auctions blocks of forest for logging on a one-time basis, whereas the logging by Interfor and other companies is done under long-term licences awarded by the Ministry of Forests and covering multiple years. The claim alleges that BC Timber Sales had “the responsibility to establish and auction” those forests in ways that “sustainably managed” water runoff from those lands.

But that didn’t happen for a number of reasons, the claim contends.

Both logging under the BC Timber Sales program and logging by Interfor and others often resulted in clear-cuts that were larger than the 40-hectare limit set out in regulations. The lawsuit alleges that for 20 years beginning in 1998, fully 41 per cent of all the logging cutblocks in the Kettle River basin, which feeds into the Grand Forks area, were larger than 40 hectares in size. And BC Timber Sales was the worst offender, with fully half of the cutblocks on lands that it auctioned for logging exceeding 40 hectares. 

Peak flow of the Kettle River. Data from the United States Geological Survey. Graph: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

In addition, the vast majority of clear-cuts were on lands higher up hills and mountain slopes in the region, where snow packs are deeper and become major sources of water as temperatures climb and the sun beats down on exposed snow in the cutblocks. The lawsuit alleges that in the four years ending in 2017, right before the devastating 2018 flood, 69 per cent of all the cutblocks were in that critical zone. 

The larger cutblocks meant that more snow accumulated on the ground where it was not shaded by trees, which made it prone to a fast melt.

Regulations were also in place that were supposed to limit how many forests could be logged based on the healthy regrowth of trees in nearby areas that had been previously logged. That re-growth is known in forest industry parlance as “green-up.” But the suit alleges that healthy green-up in previously logged areas had not been achieved before new logging commenced, even though senior Ministry of Forests personnel had been warned this was endangering the “hydrological recovery” of logged lands, leading to increases in peak water flows.

A house in South Ruckle, one of the Grand Forks neighbourhoods most affected by the 2018 spring flood, was spared falling into the Kettle River. A small shed adjacent to it wasn’t so lucky. Photo: Louis Bockner / The Narwhal

The suit also alleges the Ministry of Forests, which has key powers to set the rate at which forests are logged, used a suspect computer model for predicting how much forest was available to be logged. The model actually over-estimated how much forest was available by 20 per cent, according to the suit. Based on this, the ministry’s chief forester allocated more timber to logging companies than was “available and sustainable for the region.” 

“This has led to increasing the frequency, duration and magnitude of peak flows. Without sufficient timber regrowth and watershed recovery the result is increased sediment transport, increased water quantity and stream channel discharge associated with flooding that caused the major flooding events in the Kettle and Granby river systems resulting in the damages to the plaintiffs’ and class members’ property,” the suit alleges.

The Narwhal asked the ministry for comment, but it refused to respond saying that it would be “inappropriate” to do so given that the matter is now before the courts.

Anthony Britneff, who worked at several senior positions during his 40 years as a professional forester employed by the ministry, has kept a close eye on events in the Grand Forks area since his retirement and has been highly critical of logging rates and road-building in the region and the threats posed to grizzly bear populations.

He said the filing of the claim could be a pivotal moment in ongoing disputes across the province about how forests are managed, particularly in community watersheds. 

“This is a landmark lawsuit,” Britneff told The Narwhal in an email. “The allegations likely apply to many watersheds throughout B.C.’s southern interior. If other communities, First Nations, farmers and ranchers dependent on water have incurred damage due to drought or flooding caused by upstream logging, then they should consider joining this class action. Good luck to the residents of Grand Forks; they deserve full restitution.”

A poster in a downtown Grand Forks coffee shop offers a help line for residents feeling frustrated and overwhelmed with life after the floods. Photo: Louis Bockner / The Narwhal

Contacted at his law offices in Toronto, Waldmann said it can be anticipated that if the matter proceeds to trial, arguments may be made by the defendants that a whole host of things caused or contributed to the flooding.

“There are multiple causes of everything in life. And you have to put before the court scientific evidence that this is the one that really matters,” Waldmann told The Narwhal. “Our basic test is whether the actions of the defendants contributed to or were part of what caused the harm, even if it wasn’t the only factor.”

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.

British Columbians naturally assume they’re using clean power when they fire up holiday lights, juice up a cell phone or plug in a shiny new electric car. 

That’s the message conveyed in advertisements for the CleanBC initiative launched by the NDP government, which has spent $3.17 million on a CleanBC “information campaign,” including almost $570,000 for focus group testing and telephone town halls, according to the B.C. finance ministry.

“We’ll reduce air pollution by shifting to clean B.C. energy,” say the CleanBC ads, which feature scenic photos of hydro reservoirs. “CleanBC: Our Nature. Our Power. Our Future.” 

Yet despite all the bumph, British Columbians have no way of knowing if the electricity they use comes from a coal-fired plant in Alberta or Wyoming, a nuclear plant in Washington, a gas-fired plant in California or a hydro dam in B.C. 

Here’s why. 

BC Hydro’s wholly-owned corporate subsidiary, Powerex Corp., exports B.C. power when prices are high and imports power from other jurisdictions when prices are low. 

In 2018, for instance, B.C. imported more electricity than it exported — not because B.C. has a power shortage (it has a growing surplus due to the recent spate of mill closures) but because Powerex reaps bigger profits when BC Hydro slows down generators to import cheaper power, especially at night.

“B.C. buys its power from outside B.C., which we would argue is not clean,” says Martin Mullany, interim executive director for Clean Energy BC. 

Branding materials from CleanBC, the province’s strategy for reducing emissions. Photo: Province of B.C. / Flickr

“A good chunk of the electricity we use is imported,” Mullany says. “In reality we are trading for brown power” — meaning power generated from conventional ‘dirty’ sources such as coal and gas. 

Wyoming, which generates almost 90 per cent of its power from coal, was among the 12 U.S. states that exported power to B.C. last year. (Notably, B.C. did not export any electricity to Wyoming in 2018.)

Utah, where coal-fired power plants produce 70 per cent of the state’s energy, and Montana, which derives about 55 per cent of its power from coal, also exported power to B.C. last year. 

So did Nebraska, which gets 63 per cent of its power from coal, 15 per cent from nuclear plants, 14 per cent from wind and three per cent from natural gas.   

Coal is responsible for about 23 per cent of the power generated in Arizona, another exporter to B.C., while gas produces about 44 per cent of the electricity in that state.  

Counting carbon emissions from B.C. power imports

That adds up to a lot of carbon.

In 2017, the latest year for which statistics are available, electricity imports to B.C. totalled just over 1.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, according to the B.C. environment ministry — roughly the equivalent of putting 255,000 new cars on the road, using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s calculation of 4.71 tonnes of annual carbon emissions for a standard passenger vehicle. 

These figures far outstrip the estimated local and upstream emissions from the contested Woodfibre LNG plant in Squamish that is expected to release annual emissions equivalent to 170,000 new cars on the road.

Import emissions cast a new light on B.C.’s latest “milestone” announcement that 30,000 electric cars are now among 3.7 million registered vehicles in the province.

In November of 2018 the province announced a new target to have all new light-duty cars and trucks sold to be zero-emission vehicles by the year 2040. Photo: Province of B.C. / Flickr

“Making sure more of the vehicles driven in the province are powered by BC Hydro’s clean electricity is one of the most important steps to reduce [carbon] pollution,” said the November 28 release from the energy ministry.

Mullany points out that Powerex’s priority is to make money for the province and not to reduce emissions.

“It’s not there for the cleanest outcome,” he said. “At some time we have to step up to say it’s either the money or the clean power, which is more important to us?”

Electricity bought and sold by little-known, unregulated Powerex

These transactions are money-makers for Powerex, an opaque entity that is exempt from B.C.’s freedom of information laws. 

Little detailed information is available to the public about the dealings of Powerex, which is overseen by a board of directors comprised of BC Hydro board members and BC Hydro CEO and president Chris O’Reilly. 

According to BC Hydro’s annual service plan, Powerex’s net income ranged from $59 million to $436 million from 2014 to 2018. 

“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.” 

Powerex’s CEO Tom Bechard — the highest paid public servant in the province — took home $939,000 in pay and benefits last year, earning $430,000 of his executive compensation through a bonus and holdback based on his individual and company performance.  

“The problem is that all of the trade goes on at Powerex and Powerex is an unregulated entity,” Mullany says. 

“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.” 

In 2018, Powerex exported 8.7 million megawatt hours of electricity to the U.S. for a total value of almost $570 million, according to data from the Canada Energy Regulator. That same year, Powerex imported 9.6 million megawatt hours of electricity from the U.S. for almost $360 million. 

Powerex sold B.C.’s publicly subsidized power for an average of $87 per megawatt hour in 2018, according to the Canada Energy Regulator. It imported electricity for an average of $58 per megawatt hour that year. 

In an emailed statement in response to questions from The Narwhal, BC Hydro said “there can be a need to import some power to meet our electricity needs” due to dam reservoir fluctuations during the year and from year to year.

‘Impossible’ to determine if electricity is from coal or wind power

Emissions associated with electricity imports are on average “significantly lower than the emissions of a natural gas generating plant because we mostly import electricity from hydro generation and, increasingly, power produced from wind and solar,” BC Hydro claimed in its statement. 

But U.S. energy economist Robert McCullough says there’s no way to distinguish gas and coal-fired U.S. power exports to B.C. from wind or hydro power, noting that “electrons lack labels.” 

Similarly, when B.C. imports power from Alberta, where 48.5 per cent of electricity production is coal-fired and 38 per cent comes from natural gas, there’s no way to tell if the electricity is from coal, wind or gas, McCullough says.

“It really is impossible to make that determination.” 

The Gillette coal pits in Wyoming, one of the largest coal-producers in the U.S. Photo: NASA Earth Observatory

Neither the Canada Energy Regulator nor Statistics Canada could provide annual data on electricity imports and exports between B.C. and Alberta. 

But you can watch imports and exports in real time on this handy Alberta website, which also lists Alberta’s power sources. 

In 2018, California, Washington and Oregon supplied considerably more power to B.C. than other states, according to data from Canada Energy Regulator. 

Washington, where about one-quarter of generated power comes from fossil fuels, led the pack, with more than $339 million in electricity exports to B.C. 

California, which still gets more than half of its power from gas-fired plants even though it leads the U.S. in renewable energy with substantial investments in wind, solar and geothermal, was in second place, selling about $18.4 million worth of power to B.C. 

And Oregon, which produces about 43 per cent of its power from natural gas and six per cent from coal, exported about $6.2 million worth of electricity to B.C. last year. 

By comparison, Nebraska’s power exports to B.C. totalled about $1.6 million, Montana’s added up to $1.3 million,  Nevada’s were about $706,000 and Wyoming’s were about $346,000.

Clean electrons or dirty electrons?

Dan Woynillowicz, deputy director of Clean Energy Canada, which co-chaired the B.C. government’s Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council, says B.C. typically exports power to other jurisdictions during peak demand. 

Gas-fired plants and hydro power can generate electricity quickly, while coal-fired power plants take longer to ramp up and wind power is variable, Woynillowicz notes. 

“When you need power fast and there aren’t many sources that can supply it you’re willing to pay more for it.”

Woynillowicz says “the odds are high” that B.C. power exports are displacing dirty power.

“As a consumer you never know whether you’re getting a clean electron or a dirty electron. You’re just getting an electron.” 

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 Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) has more than $4 billion invested in the top 200 publicly traded oil, gas and coal companies, according to a newly released report.

The report by the Corporate Mapping Project and the B.C. office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives looks at whether the investment board considers global warming when investing Canadians’ pension money.

The answer is a resounding “no,” said University of Victoria School of Environmental Studies associate professor James Rowe, one of the report authors and a co-investigator with the Corporate Mapping Project.

“As one of the largest investors in the country, they have a significant role to play in facilitating the needed energy transition and our report shows, unfortunately, they are not fulfilling that role at the moment,” Rowe told The Narwhal.

In order to stay within the 1.5 degree increase in global average temperature — committed to by Canada and  194 other countries in the 2016 Paris Agreement — fossil fuel extraction must be severely limited. But companies with Canada Pension Plan investments have reserves that, if extracted, would send emissions soaring.

“To stay within 1.5 degrees, these companies can extract only 71 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, yet the companies the CPPIB is invested in have 281 billion tonnes in reserve, meaning they have almost four times the carbon reserves that can be sold and ultimately burned to stay within 1.5 degrees,” Rowe said.

Reserves are factored into company valuation, which means the board has invested billions of dollars in companies whose financial worth depends on overshooting their carbon budget, the report says.

Many of the investments are in coal companies — even though the Canadian government has acknowledged that phasing out coal is one of the most important steps in tackling climate change and meeting the Paris Agreement targets.

The Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board manages about $400 billion in investments, making it one of Canada’s largest investment pools.

Oil and gas companies face coming devaluation

Those looking forward to collecting their pension shouldworry about the risk of stranded assets as the world transitions to renewable energy and financial institutions worldwide divest themselves of fossil fuel investments, says the report, which notes the pension’s total investment in fossil fuel companies is considerably larger than the documented $4 billion. The exact amount cannot be estimated due to limited disclosure rules.

“Our worry is that Canadians, who rely on these funds for part of our retirement, are going to be affected by stranded asset risks,” Rowe said.

“Oil and gas companies are facing a significant devaluation in the coming years and so it makes sense to move out now rather than later, which is what we see other institutions doing, but the CPP has not,” he said.

The European Union recently passed a law requiring pension funds to factor climate risk in investment decisions and Norway and California have passed similar laws. The European Investment Bank, the largest multilateral lender in the world, has announced it will no longer be investing in fossil fuel projects after 2021.

Steph Glanzmann, one of the report’s authors and a recent University of British Columbia forestry graduate, said investments in the industry will no longer be profitable

as a new generation shifts away from fossil fuels.

“This is a moral and ecological failure and also a financial risk,” she said.

Investment board should disclose risk

The report recommends that the investment board carry out a portfolio-wide risk analysis and disclose the findings and that the fund should move towards fossil fuel divestment and reinvesting capital into renewable energy. It also calls on the Canadian government to require all public pension plans to fully disclose their fossil fuel holdings.

Many CPP investments are in the biggest companies working in the Alberta oil sands, which produces high-cost, carbon-intensive bitumen. The Alberta energy industry is working to convince investors that its oil and gas is produced sustainably as it scrambles to deal with an estimated $30 billion divested in the last three years, including Sweden’s central bank, which has said it will no longer invest in projects with large climate footprints.

The report found that most divestments are from countries that do not produce oil and gas and suggests that one reason Canada is slow to react could be because its oil and gas industry is so powerful.

“As we noted in the report, a number of board members of CPP are also board members of oil and gas companies and so the interests of fossil fuel companies are influencing the decision making at the CPP and that is dangerous for Canadian pensioners,” Rowe said.

Having these directors at the investment board table means the self-interest of companies contradicts the changes investors and governments need to make to address climate change, said Zoe Yunker, an author of the report and a research assistant with the Corporate Mapping Project.

“In Canada, the fossil fuel sector has been very successful at getting a seat at government decision-making tables, both provincially and federally and CPPIB board directors and staff are entangled with the oil and gas industry,” Yunker said.                

The board’s mandate is to maximise long-term investment returns without undue risk, but the report looks at whether a failure to look at long-term climate change will mean heavy economic costs for future generations and whether it could make the organization vulnerable to a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of young Canadians.

Notably, the organization recently made a $2.63 billion purchase of wind-farm operator Pattern Energy and a November board report says investments in renewable energy companies more than doubled to $3 billion up to June this year, up from $30 million in 2016.

CEO Mark Machin, in an interview with BNN Bloomberg earlier this month, said both renewable and traditional energy are appropriate for the fund’s portfolio.

“We will look at traditional oil and gas, whether it’s pipelines or other resources,” he told Bloomberg.

“As long as we can understand all the risks behind the investment, that the regulation may change, that preference may change, that geography may change. If we can understand those and can still be compensated sufficiently, then we’ll continue to make that investment.”

* This article was updated Wednesday, November 20 at 10:56am pst to include emailed comment from the CCPIB.

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

According to a new International Monetary Fund (IMF) report, Canada subsidized the fossil fuel industry to the tune of almost $60 billion in 2015 — approximately $1,650 per Canadian.  

Yet subsidizing one of the world’s wealthiest industries is folly.

Such subsidies not only hurt Canadian taxpayers and the economy — they also exacerbate the climate emergency.

Indeed, the G20 countries have already agreed that subsidizing fossil fuels is irrational in a warming world — and have called for action to eliminate inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that distort markets.

The problem is that subsidies encourage the production and wasteful consumption of fossil fuels all while impeding the shift to cleaner renewables. 

For these reasons, during the last election campaign Justin Trudeau sensibly committed to “phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.”   

The problem is that government has not yet delivered on this promise.  

A new 2019 report by Canada’s Auditor General reveals government’s review of such subsidies is “incomplete and not rigorous,” is “not based on all relevant and reliable information” and “did not consider economic, social and environmental sustainability over the long term.”

Canada continues to subsidize the fossil fuel industry in myriad ways. First, it provides tax breaks under the federal Income Tax Act. For example, in 2015 the federal government introduced a new accelerated depreciation rate for equipment used in LNG facilities, which was a change proposed by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

A natural gas well pad with numerous wells for fracking near Farmington, B.C. The LNG industry in British Columbia is the recipient of numerous tax breaks and exemptions. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

Second, government provides funding to the fossil fuel industry at favourable rates through direct financing and loan guarantees. A recent example is Export Development Canada’s administration of a nearly $5 billion loan to support the government’s controversial purchase and operation of the Trans Mountain pipeline.  

Ottawa has no plan to recoup that principal cost from industry — and is also subsidizing half the interest expense with taxpayer dollars.

Third, Canada provides direct funding to the fossil fuel industry through research, development and other services provided by federal agencies. 

For example, the federal government is paying $1.5 billion for the Oceans Protection Plan, an initiative to safeguard bitumen transport through the Port of Vancouver. This plan was necessitated by new oil tanker traffic — and should be paid for by oil shippers. 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau visited Victoria in April of 2018 to reiterate the federal government’s support for the Trans Mountain pipeline and commitment to the Oceans Protection Plan. Photo: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

Yet now, taxpayers will pay up to $6 billion for the plan over the next 20 years.

Finally, there is the $60 billion subsidy that the IMF focused on — the “social costs” of carbon that governments pay, instead of fuel producers. 

Lacking adequate carbon taxes, governments continue to pick up the tab for the impacts of climate change — for example, repairing damage from extreme weather events, building new levees, sea walls and storm sewers and paying for wildfire control and increased health costs. 

The Fort McMurray wildfire in northern Alberta. MacEwan University estimated the cost of the 2016 wildfire, nicknamed “the beast” for its unpredictability, to be around $9 billion. Photo: pilotbiologist / Flickr

Fortunately, implementing carbon taxes and eliminating fossil fuel subsidies will pay off in the long run. 

The IMF estimates that elimination of global fossil fuel subsidies would reduce CO2 emissions by 28 per cent and reduce premature air pollution deaths by 46 per cent.

Equally important, the IMF concluded that elimination of subsidies would actually result in a net economic gain. Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies will be a win for the environment and for the economy.

In sum, Canada needs to implement robust carbon taxes to pay for the massive climate change costs that society now confronts.

Just as important, Canada must finally follow through on its specific promise to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.  

After all, claiming to fight climate change while subsidizing fossil fuels is as crazy as brushing your teeth while eating Oreos. It may make you feel virtuous, but it isn’t going to work.

Erin Gray and Calvin Sandborn QC are lawyers with the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre, where Emilie Benoit and Sydney Hamilton are both law students.

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.

It didn’t exactly come as a surprise. For months, pollsters have been predicting a sweeping win for Jason Kenney and his United Conservative Party (UCP).

Here we are: the election theatrics are over, and Alberta is settling in with a new premier-elect. Now what?

We know where the party stands on pipeline issues, but what else has the UCP promised it will do when it comes to energy and the environment?

Welcome to a new world — a world of “war rooms,” red-tape reductions and some rapid-fire repeals of existing programs and legislation.

1. Regulation? Let’s cut it.

Kenney has made it clear that a UCP government will be all about “streamlining” and “efficiencies.”

As part of that plan, the UCP government will ramp up approvals for new energy projects. Kenney described his plan as a “rapid acceleration of approvals.”

At the same time, his “red tape reduction action plan” will “cut red tape by a third.” There will be a new so-called “one-in, one-out” rule that will require that every new regulation created is offset by the elimination of an existing regulation.

He’ll even appoint a “Minister for Red Tape Reduction.”

Red tape, according to the UCP, is a “costly and growing burden” that “kills jobs.”

2. Parks: privatized services and more booze!

Given the heated backlash over the province’s Bighorn Country proposal earlier this year, it won’t come as a surprise if the UCP doesn’t pursue the planned parks and recreation areas.

Kenney had previously described the NDP’s Bighorn land-use plans as “an extreme approach to land use which cuts out local residents and legitimate economical and recreational use.”

The UCP has, however, pledged to provide $10 million to support the creation of a new urban provincial park within Edmonton city limits.

It has also pledged that “major environmental protection proposals” will be subject to a review of their economic impacts to ensure they are not harmful to the economy — a “balance,” the party says, to current environmental impact assessments of industrial projects.

The party’s platform outlines an increased emphasis of partnerships with park societies, and suggests the UCP will support increased volunteer activities to maintain parks.

An initial pilot project will determine if nearly all park services could be privatized, by examining “whether park societies could effectively be contracted to assume all park management responsibilities from [Alberta Environment and Parks], with the exception of enforcement.”

But, hey — soon we’ll be able to relax with a glass of wine after a long day of trail maintenance. The UCP has pledged to “relax liquor constraints in a number of provincial parks” as well as loosening liquor laws in municipal parks.

3. Support for renewables? Nah.

Alberta’s NDP government committed to source 30 per cent of the province’s electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030.

The UCP government has not made any similar commitments and, in the party’s platform, it’s made clear that subsidies to a fledgling renewable energy industry are not in the cards.

Instead, it says it will “welcome market-driven green power.”

As part of the UCP’s carbon-emissions reduction plan (more on that soon), funds raised will go toward “Alberta-based technologies that reduce carbon emissions.”

But the platform does not list renewable energy as an example of these technologies (Alberta has some decades-long contracts with alternative energy providers and the future of those contracts are unclear). Instead, the UCP focuses on carbon capture and new oilsands extraction technology.

Currently, coal is the biggest source of electricity in the province.

4. Making the province’s industry-funded energy watchdog more industry-friendly

Kenney wants to reduce regulation across the government, but he particularly wants to reduce what he calls red tape at the Alberta Energy Regulator, the industry-funded corporation responsible for enforcing rules surrounding the province’s energy industry.

This is the same regulator that issues 97 per cent of reclamation certificates without sending an inspector out to the oil or gas well in question for a field audit.

A Kenney government is promising to “identify efficiencies” within the regulator within the first 180 days of forming government.

5. Oilsands emissions cap?

What oilsands emissions cap?

Kenney has promised he will “absolutely” scrap the cap.

The oilsands emissions cap was enacted to limit emissions from the oilsands to 100 megatonnes. The province currently estimates total emissions to be around 70 megatonnes.

Canada’s climate commitments include an 80 per cent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2050. This means cutting total emissions to 150 megatonnes — across the entire country — in three decades.

Projects that have already received approvals add up to 131 megatonnes, according to the Pembina Institute. But even if emissions from the oilsands were capped at Alberta’s old 100-megatonne cap — they would take up two-thirds of Canada’s total emissions budget by 2050.

6. Goodbye, Energy Efficiency Alberta

In early March — before the election got underway — Kenney made headlines for announcing that Albertans “don’t need bureaucrats changing our shower heads and our light bulbs.”

According to the Edmonton Journal, Kenney also said “programs under the agency would be ‘gone.’ ”

Energy Efficiency Alberta is a public agency mandated to support reductions in energy consumption in homes and businesses across the province, and is supported in part by revenue from the carbon tax.

Alberta was the only jurisdiction in North America to not have any energy efficiency agency prior to the program’s launch in early 2017.

7. Adios, carbon tax

One of the first promises of UCP leader Jason Kenney’s platform was well-known, and oft-repeated: The UCP government will scrap the carbon tax — on day one — boasting that, “at $1.4 billion, this will be the largest tax cut in Alberta’s history.”

Carbon pricing was enacted by Alberta premier Rachel Notley in 2015. The program involves collecting a levy on carbon-producing activities, then reinvesting that money into designated programs, as well as returning a portion of the funds to taxpayers through a means-based rebate program.

When Alberta repeals its own carbon-pricing plan, the federal government’s system will be put into place by default.

The UCP has a plan to target large industrial emitters, defined as “existing facilities with emissions above 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide.”

Those large emitters will be required to reduce their emissions intensity, which is not the same as total emissions (intensity refers to a ratio with economic output).

Large emitters will be required to reduce emissions intensity by 10 per cent initially (then increasing by one per cent per year), compared to their own emissions, averaged out between 2016 and 2018.

Large emitters that fail to reduce their emissions by the required benchmark will either pay a per-tonne price (lower than the current price) or buy offsets.

The UCP’s plan — called the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction (TIER) Fund — has been criticized as being a “symbolic” tax that will not be as effective in incentivizing reductions in carbon emissions as a broad-based carbon-pricing scheme.

8. Hello, lawsuit

Kenney has a plan to fight back against the federal carbon tax that will be imposed on Alberta. He’ll sue.

The UCP will “challenge the constitutionality of the Trudeau carbon tax by filing a judicial reference to the Court of Appeal, while continuing to support similar challenges by the governments of Saskatchewan and Ontario.”

Ontario’s Progressive Conservative party budgeted $30 million for its lawsuit, and Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick have since joined in on the fight, too.

9. What about Alberta’s inactive oil and gas well crisis?

The Narwhal reported earlier this month that the Alberta Energy Regulator had privately predicted that the number of inactive wells in the province will double in the coming decade unless there’s a significant change in policy.

In a presentation obtained through a freedom of information request, the regulator noted that without the implementation of deadlines on when wells need to be plugged or cleaned up, and without a more robust tool for assessing whether companies can actually afford to clean up after drilling is done, the province has “a problem.”

In 1999, there were 30,000 inactive wells in the province. By 2030, the regulator is predicting there could be 180,000.

The cost of cleaning these wells up has been pegged at $100 billion.

The UCP’s platform includes a few measures to request help from the federal government in incentivizing well clean-up, but few other specifics on how the government will curb the problem, which has been described as “a massive ticking time bomb.”

10. Remember our fight with B.C. over wine? Let’s do that again, but bigger

In the final days of the election campaign, Kenney amped up his anti-B.C. rhetoric, mocking Vancouver’s goal of being zero-emissions by 2040, and taunting the city’s mayor by announcing that a Kenney government would ensure “a carbon-free Vancouver by 2020” . . . by turning off the taps and restricting shipments of Alberta fuel to B.C.

The threat is in the party’s platform, too. The party pledges it will “use the ‘Turn off the Taps’ legislation should provinces, including British Columbia, continue to obstruct the construction of pipelines.”

Gas prices in the Lower Mainland of B.C are already reaching record levels.

11. Fights — expect more of   ’em

We’re going to fight the carbon tax.

We’re going to fight Trudeau.

We’re going to fight Horgan.

We’re going to fight the Canadian confederation.

We’re going to fight environmental charities.

We’re going to fight foreign “special interests.”

We’re going to fight HSBC.

The UCP platforms declares that the Alberta government will boycott companies, such as HSBC, that boycott Alberta products.

It also states the party will “ask the energy industry to significantly increase its advocacy efforts” and will “support” companies willing to do so.

A UCP government will also “challenge the charitable status of groups that are funneling foreign money into anti-Alberta campaigns.”

(But wait, in the era of global markets and multinational corporations, what is all this foreign-funding talk even referring to?)

It all adds up to a lot of fighting.

12. Expect to hear a lot more about ‘foreign-funded environmentalists.’ We’re getting an energy war room!

Jason Kenney has been busy touring around Alberta touting the conclusions of Vancouver-based blogger Vivian Krause, who he describes as “intrepid,” saying she “deserves a great deal of credit.”

He’s planning to launch what he calls an “energy war room,” which will, in the words of the UCP’s platform, “fight fake news and share the truth about Alberta’s resource sector and energy issues.”

The war room will have a $30 million annual budget.

Its goal? To “stand up to well-funded foreign special interests who have been waging a decade-long campaign to landlock Alberta’s oil and gas with their campaign of defamation.”

If you’re scratching your head, read this. And then maybe go have a glass of wine in a park.  

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.

So far in the Alberta election, much of the conversation related to the environment has revolved around two political hot potatoes: the carbon tax and pipelines.

On the latter, all parties agree. “Build that pipeline!” is an oft-repeated refrain here in Alberta.

There is, of course, more to a well-rounded energy and environment platform than just these two policies.

“The conversation around climate and environment — and even energy — is almost entirely ideological,” Ian Hussey, research manager at the Parkland Institute at the University of Alberta, told The Narwhal.

Duncan Kenyon, Alberta regional director of the Pembina Institute, agrees.

“We’re falling back into these dogmatic tribal discussions,” he told The Narwhal. “We need to get back to having hard, honest discussions.”

Now that the parties’ platforms have been released — and the leaders’ debate is over —  Albertans may be left wondering where the two major parties stand on other issues related to energy and the environment.

So we took a closer look at what’s at stake for the environment in this election — and what the two major parties are planning to do about it.

1. Energy efficiency

United Conservative Party (UCP) leader Jason Kenney is not a fan of the province’s energy efficiency program, describing its services as, “sending bureaucrats into our homes to change showerheads and lightbulbs.”

Energy Efficiency Alberta was created in 2017 and uses revenues from the carbon tax to fund measures to reduce emissions — in homes and businesses.

The NDP’s platform boasts the program has saved Albertans $510 million in its first year of operations and the organization has said its programs mean three million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions were avoided in the first nine months of its operations.

“There’s really strong merit to having an energy efficiency program,” Kenyon told The Narwhal. “It’s much more efficient to save a kilowatt of energy than to build a new power plant to meet growing demand.”

According to Kenyon, prior to the creation of Energy Efficiency Alberta, the province was the only jurisdiction in North America without an energy efficiency organization. “We haven’t exactly been leaders in this space,” he said.

As for the UCP’s plan to scrap the program? “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater,” Kenyon warned.

2. The oilsands emissions cap

In 2016, the Alberta government passed Bill 25, which sought to limit the total greenhouse gas emissions from oilsands development to 100 megatonnes. Oilsands emissions are currently around 70 megatonnes each year, according to government figures — and many worry they’re poised to increase.

The NDP’s platform is clear the cap isn’t going anywhere if the party stays in power, noting, “we will keep the firm cap on oil sands carbon emissions.”

Advocates for the cap say there’s still work to be done. “Alberta’s oilsands’s emissions cap is not operating in practice,” said Hussey, who notes that the “legislation is sitting on a shelf,” and regulations have not yet been put into place. (The NDP’s platform doesn’t mention implementing regulations.)

The UCP makes no explicit mention of the cap in their platform, but leader Jason Kenney has said he’ll lift the cap the first week he takes office, and during the debate said that he would “absolutely” take the cap off oilsands emissions.

Alberta oilsands release an estimated 70 megatonnes of emissions each year, according to government figures. Photo: Kris Krug

3. Environmental liabilities in the oil and gas sector

“We have a trillion litres of oilsands tailings ponds,” Hussey of Parkland told The Narwhal. “We have no plan to deal with that. How is that not an election issue?”

Liabilities don’t end with tailings ponds.

On Monday, the Alberta Liabilities Disclosure Project found Albertans are at risk of being on the hook for an oil well cleanup bill between $40 and $70 billion — two to 3.5 times more than the $18.5 billion publicly reported estimate — and those are just liabilities for wells. That doesn’t include the cleanup tab for pipelines, tailings ponds and all other oil and gas infrastructure peppering the landscape today.

Companies are able to move their liabilities around, in what The Globe and Mail dubbed a “brisk trade in junk assets.” In some cases, financially precarious companies are permitted to take on liabilities they can’t afford in the long run.

Some of those companies end up bankrupt. The Redwater decision sought to provide some clarity on this issue, but problems remain.

For its part, the NDP says it will “implement new corporate health measures on asset sales to prevent liability dumping as we continue to work with industry.”

The UCP makes no similar specific commitments, saying that it will “work jointly with the AER and industry to overhaul the liability management framework in Alberta, ensuring liabilities are covered without unduly discouraging new investment.”

This issue could become increasingly important, as the number of inactive wells is on the rise.

The Narwhal recently reported that internal documents obtained from the Alberta Energy Regulator showed that senior staff project that, without a change in policy, the number of inactive wells in the province could double by 2030.

There are currently hundreds of thousands of wells across the province.

4. Wilderness and parks

Neither party has made much mention of the Bighorn proposal in their platforms (save the UCP’s assertion that “the NDP government ignored Indigenous groups on the creation of Bighorn park.”)

The Bighorn proposal — to create a network of various levels of protected areas on the eastern slopes of the Rockies near Rocky Mountain House — was big news earlier this year as vocal opposition to the proposal made headlines.

Both parties’ platforms talk about increasing partnerships with outdoor recreation groups and park societies in their platforms.

Neither explicitly mentions plans for any new parks. Under what are known as the Aichi Targets, Canada has committed to protect 17 per cent of land and freshwater by 2020 — and that includes Alberta.

5. Reclamation

Reclamation is the last step in any extractive industrial life cycle here in Alberta — it occurs once the resource no longer has any productive value, or is used up. Companies are required by law to clean up after themselves, but there are concerns about enforcement of these obligations.

As The Narwhal reported last fall, the provincial government’s own pilot project found that the vast majority of sites studied didn’t meet standards for adequate reclamation.

Neither parties’ platform goes into much detail about reclamation, with the UCP highlighting its goal to “streamline” the process and to “reduce costs.”

On the issue of how and when to ensure companies clean up after themselves, the parties’ platforms differ.

The NDP’s platform says the party will implement timelines for reclamation of oil and gas sites, noting it will also, “require them to justify delays in reclaiming sites.”

The UCP’s platform proposes requesting tax incentives from the federal government, and also highlights that it will rapidly accelerate the approval of new drilling.

A flooded and inaccessible oil lease site in Wainwright, Alta. Photo: Amber Bracken / The Narwhal

6. Methane regulations

According to the Alberta government, the impact of methane as a greenhouse gas is, “25 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period.”

In 2014, Alberta’s oil and gas sector emitted 31.4 megatonnes of methane (measured in carbon dioxide equivalent).

Both Alberta and Canada released plans for new regulations to deal with methane emissions last year, but there have been vocal critics of Alberta’s methane regulations to date.

According to the Pembina Institute, “Alberta’s methane regulations will allow oil and gas companies to release far greater volumes of harmful methane pollution than if they followed the federal methane regulations enacted . . . by Environment and Climate Change Canada.”

The NDP claims it has “invested over $200 million to reduce methane gas emissions,” and pledges in its platform that the province under an NDP government would “achieve a 45 per cent reduction in methane emissions by 2025.”

The UCP platform does not mention methane.

7. Okay, so about that carbon tax (and lawsuits and the question of Alberta’s self-determination)

The UCP’s position on the carbon tax is well known: scrap it.

The party’s platform makes it clear: “Bill 1 of a United Conservative government will be the Carbon Tax Repeal Act,” while claiming the carbon tax “currently costs Alberta’s families and employers about $1.4 billion per year.”

The UCP proposes to replace the carbon tax with what it calls a Technology Innovation and Emissions Reductions (TIER) fund. This plan would target large industrial emitters, requiring them to reduce their emissions intensity — notably, this is different from their total emissions, as it is dependent on economic output — compared to their own recent annual averages.

On the flip side, the NDP plans to continue its current carbon-pricing system.

Advocates for carbon pricing say it’s a realistic and business-friendly approach to reduce emissions. And, they point out, Alberta isn’t really in a position to eliminate a carbon tax altogether.

“In a state of the world where the UCP wins and eliminates the Alberta carbon tax, we’d maybe have a few months of no carbon pricing,” Jennifer Winter, assistant professor of economics at the University of Calgary, told The Narwhal.

That, she said, wouldn’t last long. “Then the federal system is put in place.”

For Winter, a made-in-Alberta policy means the policy can be tailored to suit the province’s needs.

“It’s about whether we think Alberta should have control of our policy and revenues.”

She points out that shifting to the federal system would result in a “shift in who’s affected by the carbon prices.”

Alberta’s system, she said, is “means tested,” meaning that rebates are based on income. In the federal system, she added, “everyone who files taxes receives a rebate.”

She also notes that Alberta has negotiated a temporary exemption for some aspects of conventional oil and gas production from having to pay carbon taxes. That sector, she said, represents “a substantial amount of Alberta’s emissions.”

Moving to the federal carbon tax means the end of that temporary exemption, and could actually increase the amount those producers pay.

Kenney’s response to the imposition of a federal carbon tax if he scraps Alberta’s plan? “We will sue.”

8. Emissions trends

According to the NDP’s platform, Alberta’s greenhouse gas emissions have dropped 16 per cent since the party implemented its climate leadership plan — a plan the party plans to continue to implement.

The UCP’s platform says it is “committed to responsible energy development and that includes action to mitigate greenhouse emissions and reduce their contribution to climate change.”

Either party will face a momentous challenge, with recent reports indicating Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, the earth’s glaciers are shrinking faster than previously thought, the Arctic is entering an “unprecedented state,” and more climate-related extreme weather events are happening in Alberta.

And that’s just the beginning.

“The Alberta NDP have done a lot relative to previous governments,” Hussey noted of the party’s environmental track record, “but way less than is scientifically necessary to address the size of the climate crisis.”

“On the other hand, for their main competitor — the UCP — their plan is to undo everything the NDP has done.”

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.

It may sound yawn-worthy but B.C.’s new “fiscal setting” to increase profits for LNG Canada is the single most significant environmental move this government has made since taking office.

The development of a liquified natural gas (LNG) empire in B.C. has been plagued with fits and starts.

Stalled by squeamish investors — undoubtedly worried about opposition to fracking, legal challenges, resistance to pipelines on Indigenous land and global efforts to reduce emissions — it seemed for a while as if B.C.’s grandiose vision for LNG might fall apart altogether.

But that all changed as the B.C. government began proposing major tax incentives to entice a wayward LNG industry.

On March 25 those proposals were transmitted into new legislation that bundles tax exemptions and cheap electricity rates into an incentive package worth an estimated $5.35 billion to LNG Canada, a consortium of some of the most profitable multinationals in the world.

This seemingly innocuous sounding new “fiscal framework” is being sold to British Columbians as a way to protect the province’s air, land and water all while creating 10,000 jobs and $40 billion in investment.

Those government talking points have received a lot of hype and ample play across headlines.

But there are uncomfortable realities afoot that cast these aspirational promises in a very different light.

1. LNG and B.C.’s climate targets don’t mix well

On Monday we learned the stupefying news that Canada is warming at twice the global rate. Northern B.C., where the LNG Canada project is to be located in Kitimat, is warming at nearly three times that rate. On the heels of this distressing news was federal environment commissioner Julie Gelfand’s admonition Tuesday that Canada is not doing enough to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Just two days later, B.C. celebrated its new LNG tax breaks, claiming the LNG Canada project — set to become the single largest source point of emissions in the province — will be the cleanest in the world and will fit within B.C.’s CleanBC climate action plan.

But the province has yet to demonstrate how this will be done.

LNG is notoriously carbon-intensive. LNG is liquid natural gas that has to be super-cooled to -161 degrees Celsius in huge compressor stations. The vast majority of natural gas in B.C. is extracted via hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which itself is a process associated with massive greenhouse gas emissions (likely much more than are formally accounted for).

According to the provincial government, phase one of the LNG Canada project is expected to emit about four megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually, the equivalent of adding 856,531 cars to the road.

That will account for 10 per cent of B.C.’s entire carbon budget by 2050, putting massive pressure on other sectors such as transportation, building and industry to undergo a rapid decarbonization. In February the provincial government released its long-awaited climate plan, CleanBC, which reasserts its intention to lower emissions to 40 per cent below 2007 levels by 2030.

However, the document admits the province was only able to chart a path for about three-quarters of those reductions. The province wasn’t able to identify a specific plan or timelines to actually reach its target.

A slide from a government technical presentation shows LNG Canada emissions in the context of B.C.’s climate targets.

It’s worth noting that all of B.C.’s combined 103 industrial facilities emitted a combined 18.6 megatonnes in 2016, the last year for which data is available under the provincial inventory.

To meet B.C.’s target for 2050, the entire province’s emissions need to come down to a collective 12.6 megatonnes. In recent years B.C.’s overall emissions have increased, not decreased.

Despite this, the province and Premier John Horgan regularly insist the LNG Canada project will fit within the climate plan.

A spokesperson with the B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources told The Narwhal that B.C. is on track to meet targets. “Our government has been clear that LNG development must meet our climate targets, and LNG Canada’s facility aligns with our CleanBC plan.”

He added that the final LNG Canada “investment decision” is only for phase one of the project.

B.C. Green Party leader and MLA Andrew Weaver, who is also a climate scientist, said he is worried a second phase of the project will become a reality. The Pembina Institute estimates the second phase of LNG Canada will more than double the project’s emissions to between 8.6 and 9.6 megatonnes. If that happens, Weaver says 98 per cent of all emissions from every other aspect of B.C.’s economy would have to be eliminated to meet our 2030 and 2050 targets.

“And that’s just not possible,” Weaver told The Narwhal.

2. About that ‘$40 billion’ in investment

Government press materials continuously refer to the LNG Canada project as a $40 billion project, “the largest private-sector investment in B.C.’s history.”

But LNG Canada’s own estimates say $25 to $40 billion for a two-phase project. Only phase one of the project has received approval.

Concerning phase one, LNG Canada has only committed to spending between $2.5 and $4.1 billion in British Columbia.

Meanwhile, between $7 and $11.1 billion for phase one will be spent on foreign soil. This will include the construction of the Kitimat facility, which will be manufactured abroad, then shipped in pieces to B.C.

“It pisses me off to no end that the media have just basically taken this [$40 billion] number and kept repeating it ad nauseum,” Marc Lee, senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, told The Narwhal.

“No one has actually checked to see if that number is accurate.”

(The Narwhal busted this myth in its reporting last year.)

3. The unresolved issue of the Coastal Gaslink pipeline on Indigenous territory

The $4.7-billion Coastal GasLink Project, a 675-kilometre pipeline running from Dawson Creek to Kitimat, is an essential part of the LNG Canada project.

It’s also the gas pipeline at the centre of one of Canada’s most distressing clashes between the energy industry and Indigenous rights.

Most Canadians will recall the violent takedown of a Unist’ot’en blockade established by members of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation to prevent the construction of the pipeline through unceded territory.

Clans of the Wet’suwet’en Nation have built dwellings, a healing centre and a cultural camp in the proposed pathway of the pipeline and have blocked industry access on their lands for almost a decade.

In January the RCMP enforced a court injunction to remove one of the clan’s blockades. Since then, clearing work for the pipeline has been put on hold as the significance of Indigenous archaeological findings are assessed. The pipeline is owned by TC Energy, formerly TransCanada.

At a press briefing last March, when the province first announced tax breaks for LNG Canada, Premier John Horgan said B.C.’s support of LNG hinged on the condition of respecting Indigenous rights.

“It’s not going to be easy,” Horgan told reporters at that briefing. “Industrial activity and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples are difficult issues. Meeting our climate change objectives are primary and fundamental to the new government’s approach.”

“Rather than skirt those issues, like the previous government did — rather than ignore those issues of reconciliation and climate action — we want to marry industrial activity with those two key government objectives.”

How the issue of the Coastal Gaslink pipeline on Wet’suwet’en territory will be addressed is completely unknown, as are the outcomes of other legal challenges facing the gas pipeline.

4. Many B.C. LNG jobs already allocated to foreign and out-of-province workers

There was a particularly painful exchange recently in the Legislature, during which Andrew Weaver repeatedly asks the same question to an evasive B.C. NDP Finance Minister Carol James: is there any mechanism that requires LNG Canada to hire British Columbian workers?  

“It’s very clear there is nothing, [James] has essentially admitted that,” said Weaver later. “There is no [B.C. jobs] requirement.”

So where does that 10,000 figure come from?

On LNG Canada’s website, the company estimates that 10,000 people will be employed during construction, between the plant and the connecting pipeline.

“LNG Canada is committed to hiring local, within B.C. and across Canada, and does not foresee requiring a large number of workers from outside the country,” the company states.

But this assurance has no teeth. That was clear April 2, when BC Liberals embarrassed the government by leaking an NDP internal document estimating that just 35 to 55 per cent of the construction workforce will be from British Columbia.

Up to 65 per cent of the workers could be from outside the province, with an unknown influx of foreign temporary workers, the use of which the B.C. NDP apparently supports.

The punch line to all of this: when the LNG plant is up and running, the amount of jobs set aside for British Columbians is more likely to be in the 3,500 to 5,500 range, not 10,000.

5. Major taxpayer subsidies for LNG

Another government talking point is that the economic benefits of the LNG Canada project include “$23 billion in new government revenues over the life of the project, creating new resources for health care, schools, child care and services for British Columbians.”

But to move the project forward, British Columbians will now provide rich subsidies, valued at $5.35 billion, to the LNG Canada consortium, made up of some of the most profitable multinationals in the world: Royal Dutch Shell, Mitsubishi Corp., Malaysian-owned Petronas, PetroChina Co. and Korean Gas Corp.

Those subsidies will provide LNG Canada with cheap electricity, lower corporate income tax rates, deferrals on provincial sales tax and — even though this will dramatically increase B.C. emissions — an exemption from carbon tax increases.

The subsidies go far beyond the LNG plant. BC Hydro is spending $600 million for two transmission lines to serve the natural gas industry in the Peace region to support what the premier has called the “radical electrification” necessary to support the gas boom.

The subsidies go deeper too: in 2003 a “deep-well royalty credit” was introduced to incentivize fracking, but now that roughly 95 per cent of wells are fracked, the subsidy applies to virtually every well at a price tag Weaver estimates to be around $3.2 billion.

Against all of this, B.C.’s health care and education systems won’t get much of a boost.

That $23 billion in annual “new government revenues” from LNG Canada will be spread out over 40 years. That breaks down to roughly $500 million per year.

The B.C. budget this year was about $50 billion, meaning the increase in revenues will be equivalent to about one per cent of the B.C. budget each year.

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

6. The high costs of fracking for natural gas

When the B.C. government first announced its plans for massive LNG subsidies, it cautioned that it would only pursue the creation of this industry if it could be done while protecting air, land, water and climate commitments.

Yet fracking for natural gas comes with high environmental costs and, according to the findings of a recent scientific panel, much of the impact is not well understood or regularly monitored.

The panel’s report, which identified massive gaps in B.C.’s knowledge, specified that threats to water, land and human health from fracking were all but impossible to quantify.

“The very rapid development of shale gas in [northeastern B.C.] has made it difficult to assure that risks are being adequately managed at every step. Furthermore, the panel could not quantify risk because there are too few data to assess risk,” the panel wrote.

This is a major concern given fracking is associated with massive water use (the average frack uses between five million and 100 million litres of water), radioactive waste, earthquakes, dangerous air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

A recent peer-reviewed study by the David Suzuki Foundation and St. Francis Xavier University found methane emissions from B.C.’s oil and gas industry are two-and-a-half times higher than reported. A followup study found wells in the Montney region, which would supply gas to LNG Canada, release more than 11,800 tonnes of methane into the air annually — the equivalent of burning 4.5 million tonnes of coal or putting two million cars on the road. B.C. has a plan to reduce methane emissions 45 per cent by 2025, but experts worry robust baseline emissions data isn’t being collected.

An uptick in fracking in B.C. has led to a wave of industrialization that has transformed prized agricultural land into a network of drill rigs, pipelines and waste pits.

Fracking wells in the Farmington area of northeastern B.C. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

A total of 92 unauthorized dams used to impound water for fracking operations have been identified in B.C. All have been built on private lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve. This photo shows a dam near the Pine River in Farmington, B.C. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

And recently, physicians in northeast B.C. spoke up about a wave of health impacts they’re seeing alongside a substantial increase in fracking near Dawson Creek. Despite these concerns, the province excluded human health impacts from the purview of the scientific panel tasked with reviewing fracking.

An investigation by The Narwhal also revealed that the province is having difficulty managing the increase of inactive natural gas wells and contaminated sites left behind by companies claiming bankruptcy. Alongside contaminated soil and unplugged wells, companies are leaving behind massive waste pits full of contaminated sludge left over from the fracking process.

Given all these risks, uncertainties and gaps in data, it seems the province isn’t in a position to guarantee LNG Canada can go ahead while air, land, water, climate and human health are all protected.

— With files from Christopher Pollon

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.

Want more reporting on the vast swaths of forests — and the natural world — in Canada? Sign up for our newsletter — it’s free, delivered to your inbox every week! We’ve got some pretty sick GIFs in there, too.

The Canadian boreal forest is part of our country’s cultural identity.

Often called the “Amazon of the North,” the boreal is the lungs of the northern hemisphere, helping store carbon and regulate the effects of climate change. This vast landscape is breeding ground for billions of North America’s songbirds and critical habitat for the threatened boreal woodland caribou. It is the traditional territory and holds cultural significance for many First Nations, whose treaty rights to hunt and fish are under threat.

Despite this, our federal and provincial governments have failed for decades to protect the boreal from destruction. But today, on this International Day of Forests, Canadians are waking up to the fact that we desperately need to do more.

Canary in the Coal Mine

Canada cuts down its forests at a truly alarming rate — among the highest in the world.

Every year, Canada clearcuts a million acres of boreal forest, or seven NHL hockey rinks per minute. From 2001 to 2017, Canada lost nearly 40 million hectares of forest — releasing huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere equivalent to the annual emissions of nearly 321 million cars.

This scale of logging contributes to climate change, and the protection of these ancient forests is crucial for protecting the water we drink and the air we breathe, and ensuring a stable climate.

Few species have been more impacted by the logging of Canada’s forests than the boreal caribou. Boreal caribou once inhabited more than half of Canada, but now their original habitat has been cut in half. Only 14 of 51 herds are considered self-sustaining, and another third of the remaining boreal caribou could disappear in the next 15 years.

In my home province of British Columbia, for example, the province has tripled the rate of approved cutblocks in endangered caribou habitat in the last five months. Boreal caribou are disappearing across Canada, and scientists point to their decline as the “canary in the coal mine” that is warning us of greater ecosystem collapse.

Tree-to-Toilet Pipeline

In February, Stand.earth released a report co-authored with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) that shines a spotlight on the crisis unfolding in the Canadian boreal forest. The report, called The Issue with Tissue, details how Americans are flushing forests down the toilet.

Although the United States is just 4 per cent of the global population, Americans consume 20 per cent of the world’s toilet paper for an average of about three rolls per week. To make their toilet paper, many brands rely on fibre from the Canadian boreal. Shockingly, about 30 per cent of that fibre comes from whole trees from clearcut forests.

But for some reason, most major at-home toilet paper brands in the U.S. refuse to incorporate recycled or alternative fibres into their products. This is despite the fact that in a poll released today, two-thirds of Americans revealed they are concerned their toilet paper is made from clear-cutting vital forests like the boreal, and 85 per cent want toilet paper companies to use more environmentally responsible materials.

Snapshot of responses to Stand.earth and NRDC’s toilet paper use poll.

The “Issue with Tissue” clearly connects the dots between toilet paper consumption and threats to the boreal.

Thanks to the report, U.S. toilet paper manufacturers that refuse to make products with recycled and alternative fibres are finally being called out for destroying Canada’s boreal forest.

Government complacency

Over a decade ago, government, industry and environmental groups announced we would work together to protect the dwindling caribou and ensure more responsible logging practices in the boreal.

But once the cameras turned off and customers were reassured, logging companies such as Resolute and others went back to logging in caribou habitat, and governments failed to put in place caribou recovery plans that protect critical habitat, which is required under the law.

Industry associations like the Forest Products Association of Canada — which once acknowledged the science that requires greater protection of critical forest areas — turned their attention to changing their public relations image instead of changing their members’ forest practices.

This crisis unfolding in the boreal is wholly due to decades of government complacency. Although the boreal caribou were listed as threatened under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) nearly two decades ago, Canada’s policymakers have failed to enforce this foundational environmental safeguard, and no provinces have thus far implemented caribou recovery plans.

Real solutions

Canadians want the Trudeau government to enforce its forest protection laws and protect the threatened boreal caribou. But it’s been fairly easy for federal and provincial governments to maintain a status quo of inaction. They can turn a blind eye simply because the demand for trees clearcut from the Canadian boreal is driven largely by the United States, and in recent years there has been little pressure to change, especially from U.S. brands that rely upon the boreal to make their products.

But no longer. The “Issue with Tissue” report shines a spotlight on these challenges, and it’s time to demand real solutions.

It’s time for large toilet paper manufacturers like Procter & Gamble to start making toilet paper from recycled and alternative fibres to reduce pressure on Canada’s boreal forest, and it’s time for the Canadian government to protect the boreal forest and threatened boreal caribou — before it’s too late.

As Canada and the rest of the world confront the necessity of rapidly innovating across industries in order to tackle the most threatening challenge of our lifetime — climate change — we simply can’t keep flushing forests down the toilet.

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.

Every spring and typically in May the Kettle River hits peak flow.

A gauge placed in the water downstream of where the Kettle is joined by the Granby River has recorded those peaks for nearly ninety years, and in most years the peaks range between 20,000 and 30,000 cubic feet of water per second.

That’s enough water to fill an Olympic size swimming pool every four seconds, give or take. But for decades it has caused little concern in southern British Columbia’s Boundary region or the City of Grand Forks, which is located at the confluence of the two rivers.

In 2017, however, the Kettle’s peak flow hit 33,000 cubic feet per second, its highest point in 60 years.

Floods occurred.

Then last year all hell broke loose in “the quickest and fastest spectacle of nature” local resident Donovan Harris says he’s ever seen.

As the snowpacks melted, the small feeder creeks high up on the forested slopes behind the community swelled with water.

As the creeks merged with streams and later the Granby and Kettle rivers themselves, water levels rose frighteningly fast. By May, the swollen Kettle’s flow was a monstrous 48,500 cubic feet per second.

A graph tracking peak flow of the Kettle River since 1930 puts into historical perspective the incredible surge of floodwaters experienced in 2018. Data from the United States Geological Survey. Graph: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

For Jennifer Houghton, the difference between flood years was stark: a waterline on the walls of her home of 1.5 feet in 2017 and more than 4 feet the following year.

She now believes that the loss of her home and those of many of her neighbours had much to do with the relentless logging that has occurred in the region.

The highest point of floodwaters in Grand Forks, B.C. in the spring of 2018. Photo: Graham Watt

‘Our watershed needs a rest’

“Am I concerned that the flooding is going to get worse? Yes,” says Houghton. “Am I concerned that the logging is going to continue and make it worse? Yes.”

She adds, “I think our watershed needs a rest. And I think the government should seriously be considering putting a moratorium on logging in our watershed in high-risk areas until more assessment is done.”

Houghton is not alone in her concerns.

Widespread, disastrous flooding in the Fraser Valley was narrowly averted last spring when the Fraser River swelled. Many older forests in the valleys draining into the river’s upper reaches are gone due to clear-cut logging, raging wildfires and insect attacks, all of which can increase peak water flows.

Despite this, British Columbia’s Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development continues to approve high logging rates while doing little to understand their cumulative effects.

This has prompted a former ministry employee and professional forester who served in numerous senior positions over a 40-year period to warn that further calamities may lie ahead.

Jennifer Houghton stands outside her unfinished tiny home, November, 2018. Houghton, whose main home flooded twice in the last two years, was the first Grand Forks resident to apply to the city for a new tiny home permit. Houghton said she will move her tiny home should flood waters threaten her property in the future. Photo: Louis Bockner / The Narwhal

“The way in which the ministry operates is doing irreversible harm to the environment and to British Columbians,” says Anthony Britneff, who follows events in the Grand Forks area closely.

Since last fall, when The Narwhal visited the Grand Forks area to profile how local residents were faring in the aftermath of the flood, Houghton has spearheaded efforts to raise awareness about how accelerating forest losses may have contributed to the calamity — a delicate task in a community with a longstanding forest industry presence.

Her efforts culminated in a public meeting in January at which ecologist and professional forester, Herb Hammond, and local woodlot owner, Fred Marshall, spoke.

Grand Forks residents prep for winter in sheds, RVs after catastrophic flooding

A proliferation of clear-cuts

At the meeting, Hammond used maps prepared by Dave Leversee to highlight his concerns.

The Seattle-based mapping expert has documented declines in old-growth forests on Haida Gwaii, Vancouver Island and portions of B.C.’s vast interior.

Leversee’s maps graphically captured the logging in valleys draining into the Kettle and Granby rivers, especially the spider’s web of clear-cuts higher up on the slopes where the air is colder and deeper snowpacks naturally occur.

Mapping showing the location of clearcut logging in high elevation areas in the Kettle River watershed. Map: David Leversee

Hammond likened the proliferation of clear-cuts to “a bad case of the measles” and said they have altered the natural movement of water through the landscape.

In clear-cuts, all the trees in a forest are cut down. The logged lands accumulate up to 40 per cent more snow than in an unlogged forest, Hammond said. When temperatures warm, the melting snow and runoff from the clear-cuts occurs far faster than in the forest.

“All of that adds up to degraded hydrology and things like floods and the droughts that will come next,” Hammond warns.

Trees in a healthy forest, transpire somewhere between 500 and 700 millimeters of water per year, says Allan Chapman, a hydrologist and professional geoscientist who retired in 2017 after a 30-year public service career including stints with the forests and environment ministries and the Oil and Gas Commission. That’s water that is taken up from the tree roots and released back into the atmosphere — water that does not accumulate in the soil to later enter streams and rivers.

In the absence of trees, “soils become wetter,” Chapman says. “Why is that important? Because when you log an area, the ability of soil to store water is reduced, therefore more of that water runs off quicker.”

Trees in unlogged forests also capture one quarter or more of falling snow. Through a process called sublimation, much of that intercepted snow returns to the atmosphere as a gas, skipping the liquid phase all together. In clear-cuts there is nothing to intercept that snow. It just builds and builds.

While logging companies must “reforest” what they clear-cut — something typically achieved by hiring tree-planting crews to do the brutal work of sinking new seedlings into the scarred earth — it will take 30 years or so following planting before the new trees transpire healthy volumes of water once again, Chapman says.

Assuming, that is, that the young trees survive. Increasingly, many of them do not — they’re dying prematurely in wildfires and from pest and disease outbreaks.

Retired forester, Fred Marshall, walks through cutblock 04Q-09, a 454-hectare clearcut logged by Interfor above the Boundary Creek drainage. Marshall believes questionable logging practices are one of the main causes of the Grand Forks floods. Photo: Louis Bockner / The Narwhal

Burned forests exacerbate problems

In Baker Creek, a watershed near Quesnel, 90 per cent of the trees are either killed by mountain pine beetles or clear-cut. The result, Chapman says, is “larger volumes of runoff in Baker Creek that will persist for decades.”

Bob Simpson, a former MLA and forestry critic, is Quesnel’s mayor. The city boasts the biggest forest industry investments per capita of any community in B.C. and has two pulp mills, sawmills, panel mills and value-added mills.

Quesnel is also at the epicenter of the most dramatic changes to forests in the province, particularly on the sprawling Chilcotin plateau west of the Fraser River.

“It’s a blown-out landscape. It’s either dead from mountain pine beetle, or other pests and diseases, or burnt,” Simpson says, adding that the critical test for his community, the forest industry and the province is to make that landscape more “resilient.”

In 2017 and 2018, out-of-control wildfires burned more than 2.4 million hectares of forest in B.C., roughly four Prince Edward Islands. Many of those infernos, which cost $700 million to fight, were near Quesnel and in the greater Fraser River watershed.

During last year’s record wildfires, Premier John Horgan called the devastation “the new normal” of climate change. But Simpson says such comments are unhelpful and divert attention away from essential questions about how B.C.’s forests are managed.

Wildfire control near Clearwater B.C. in the Chilcotin region, July 2018. Photo: B.C. Wildfire Service

For example, logging companies typically plant more lodgepole pine trees than they log. Why? Because pine trees thrive in open, sunny settings — precisely what you get when you clear-cut a forest. Such planting then sets the table for the beetles that are building in number due to climate change. Many of those trees then burn in wildfires, which forest scientists have predicted for decades will increase in frequency and severity as temperatures warm and drier conditions prevail.

Our forests are “just not managed in a way that is resilient to endemic pests and diseases and is resilient to wildfires that are part of the natural cycle,” Simpson says. “We have a simplified landscape that cannot, does not, have the natural breaks, does not have the natural stopgaps to stop these massive epidemics that we’re experiencing and then these massive fires.”

Burned forests then exacerbate problems, potentially increasing flood severity.

“For some period of time after a hot fire occurs, the upper levels of soil have a waxy layer that is hydrophobic and a decreased volume of water enters the soil. It just runs off,” Chapman says. That increased runoff may last for years.

‘This town relies on Interfor’

In a presentation to Grand Forks city council in early January, Jeff Becker, forests and woods manager for Interfor, one of the largest lumber producers in the world, noted how wildfires are increasing in severity in the Grand Forks area where the company operates a sawmill.

Wildfires burned more than 24,000 hectares of local forest in the last four years — more than twice the area burned in the 30 years before that.

During his presentation, Becker said he knew about the meeting that Houghton was organizing for the following week. He wanted to make sure that council members had certain “facts” before them prior to that meeting.

“There’s been a bit of misinformation on exactly what happened and how it happened,” Becker said. “We just want to make sure that there’s a balanced kind of view on it.”

Becker said the key reason for the flood was “unusual” weather including a snowpack that was 230 per cent above normal, warm spring weather and rains that accelerated the snow melt.

“We know that happened,” Becker said.

An aerial view of Grand Forks flooding, courtesy of Sergeant Mike Wicentowich, one of many RCMP officers dispatched in response to the significant 2018 spring flood. Interfor’s property can be seen centre left. Photo: Sergeant Mike Wicentowich

While Becker did not deny that “forestry isn’t part of the issue” when it comes to altered water flows, he claimed that roughly only one per cent of forests in the Grand Forks area were logged each year.

Becker’s remarks clearly resonated with Grand Forks councillor Chris Moslin who singled out Becker’s employer for praise. “This town relies on Interfor, not just for employment but…for flood protection,” Moslin said, adding that the company had donated heavy equipment and personnel to battle the rising waters.

Eight days after Becker’s presentation, people attending the meeting organized by Houghton heard a different story. They learned that 18 per cent of the total land base in the valleys draining toward the Granby and Kettle rivers had been logged since 1990, an amount not far removed from what Becker said.

But they also learned something else. That the vast amount of that logging was concentrated at higher elevations where more snow accumulated. In fact, 44 per cent of the “harvestable” timber — industry jargon for available to log — had been clear-cut in such forests.

Interfor’s lumberyard across the Kettle River from downtown Grand Forks. Some residents believe that dykes built to protect the forestry giant’s property made flooding worse for neighbouring communities because the water had nowhere else to go. Photo: Louis Bockner

And they learned of a sprawling network of roads in the watersheds that outside of the clear-cuts themselves totalled 13,000 kilometres, the equivalent of driving a car from Victoria to St. John’s Newfoundland and then back across the country again as far as Winnipeg. The ditches alongside those roads filled with snowmelt during the spring, channeling water toward Grand Forks just as surely as the watershed’s creeks and streams did.

The cumulative effect of all that disturbance was the loss of older forests on fully one quarter of the land base. An undetermined amount more forest was also lost to insect attacks and disease outbreaks.

Chapman says that once the total area of older forest lost to disturbances reaches about 30 per cent, there will be “measurable” signs of that in water flows.

If the forests in and around Grand Forks are not yet at that tipping point, they are perilously close to it.

The new era of deregulation

Shortly after Gordon Campbell led the BC Liberals to their first of four successive electoral victories in 2001, a new era of deregulation was ushered in. The government scrapped B.C.’s highly prescriptive Forest Practices Code, which spelled out in detail what logging companies must do, and replaced it with the Forest and Range Practices Act. The new regime was grounded in a philosophy that government should not tell companies precisely what to do but set broad objectives instead and let professionals working for the companies decide how to meet them.

The era of “professional reliance” was born.

Prior to that, Chapman said, foresters were required to do hydrological assessments and “cumulative impacts assessments” in community watersheds and watersheds with higher fisheries values. Those requirements are now largely gone.

The result, Chapman said, is that “there’s probably nothing going on in B.C. that highlights the cumulative effects on hydrology of land-use activities.” This at a time when climate scientists predict more droughts and more floods.

Britneff says he is very concerned about the size of some clear-cuts in the Grand Forks region and their impacts on water flows. The long-time civil servant and professional forester notes that some logged areas above Grand Forks are up to 11 times larger than what the province’s chief forester recommends. Ironically, many of those larger clear-cuts were approved by BC Timber Sales, a Crown agency that promotes the “safe, sustainable development and auction” of publicly owned forests.

Fred Marshall shares Britneff’s concerns. He says BC Timber Sales’ current plans call for more than half of all new clear-cuts to be 40 hectares or more in size. Yet BC Timber Sales is only supposed to allow such clear-cuts if there is a compelling “forest health” reason to do so.

In an emailed response to questions from The Narwhal, Britneff said that a moratorium on logging higher elevation forests in the Grand Forks region is warranted and should remain in effect “until the Ministry has obtained independent, third-party assessments for the Kettle watershed for cumulative effects.”

Britneff added that the ministry’s cumulative effects analysis must include an assessment of how logging and other forest losses may impact peak water flows and increase flood risks.

The damage done: cumulative effects

While a moratorium does not appear imminent, Houghton’s efforts and those of others in the community have been noticed. Cumulative effects finally appears to be on the government’s radar.

Cassidy van Rensen, an ecosystems biologist with the ministry of forests’ regional offices in Kootenay-Boundary, confirms that the ministry is now committed to doing a cumulative effects analysis of the Kettle and Granby watersheds. The analysis “will involve a number of different policy-makers, experts, industry and public at different stages,” van Rensen said.

In a conversation with The Narwhal, van Rensen said that the analysis, which could result in recommendations as early as this summer, came at the request of BC Timber Sales. The Crown timber auctioneer is ultimately responsible for approximately 40 per cent of all the logging in the timber supply area or TSA outside Grand Forks.

Location of the Kootenay Boundary Region’s Timber Supply Area. Graphic: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

Left: The Kootenay Boundary Region Timber Supply Area surrounding Grand Forks, B.C. The TFL 8 or Tree Farm Licence 8 areas are regions where exclusive timber harvesting rights are held by companies. Right: the “timber harvesting land base” as identified by the province of B.C. Graphic: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

Marshall says he believes the devastation unleashed by last spring’s floods “stimulated” the government to act. He hopes that van Rensen and others will “heavily focus on the clear-cuts at higher elevations” as they do their work.

‘I don’t think people realize the danger we’re in’

Meanwhile, residents of Grand Forks continue to grapple with harsh realities nine months after the flood.

Donovan Harris, his wife Dayna, their 10-year-old son Julien and infant son Harlon lost pretty much everything in the flood, which destroyed their double-wide mobile home and adjacent log cabin.

There was still $70,000 outstanding on the mortgage when the waters came. Their house insurance did not cover flood damage claims. The couple eventually purchased a house on higher ground for $215,000.

The new mortgage payments are an additional $1050 a month.

“It’s straight up paycheque-to-paycheque now,” says Harris, who works as a kitchen manager at Silver Kettle Village, a retirement home. “If I get sick one day we’re not paying the bills.”

‘We have been ill-prepared’: B.C. offers flooded Grand Forks businesses disaster relief six months in

In late January, the City of Grand Forks through its Boundary Flood Recovery Team applied to the federal government’s Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund for nearly $50 million in funds to protect local homes and businesses from future floods.

“The local Boundary flood team is working really hard to get money for berms, buyouts and changing infrastructure. But that’s not going to happen in time for this year,” Houghton says.

Until the money comes and until the work is done, Houghton says the provincial government and BC Timber Sales in particular need to look at the “social and economic wellbeing” not just of the logging industry, but the communities downstream. And they need to do so quickly.

“Every single day I wake up and I see my destroyed home. Every day I see the walls that were wrecked,” Houghton says. “I don’t think people realize the danger we’re in. I don’t think they understand the gravity of the situation we’re in.”

Update March 14, 2018 8:26am pst. This article previously stated the BC Liberals won the first of four successive victories in the year 1991. The year was in fact, 2001. An update has been made to reflect this fact.

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.