On Saturday night, Andrew Scheer was elected as the next leader of the federal Conservatives.

At 38 years old, Scheer was the youngest of the 13 candidates in the race (he’d previously served as the youngest Speaker of the House of Commons in the country’s history, as well as a short-lived Opposition House Leader).

Despite his age, Scheer sported some of the most traditionally conservative policies of the bunch, including on the environmental and climate change front.

Here’s a quick rundown on some of the things that Scheer plans to do if his Conservative Party wins the 2019 election, as well as some other key facts to know.

Scheer Wants To Repeal Carbon Pricing

There’s a good reason that Clean Prosperity gave Scheer a ‘D’ in its pre-election “environmental policy report card.”

The main reason for this is his commitment to repeal mandatory carbon pricing, which will hit $50/tonne in 2022 under the federal Liberal plan.

Scheer’s website — which has since been taken down, but can be accessed via the WayBack Machine — argued that carbon pricing “raises the cost of everything and puts jobs at risk while doing little for the environment.”

This contrasts the positions of conservative economists and politicians such as Gregory Mankiw and Preston Manning, as well as a recent analysis of the B.C. carbon tax that indicated the policy had reduced emissions by between five and 15 per cent since implementation in 2008.

Instead of carbon pricing, Scheer pledges to “support a sector by sector approach to reduce greenhouse gases in cooperation with industry and the United States.” It’s rather unclear what that means.

Scheer’s Ties to Ultra-Right Conservatives

Scheer’s campaign team includes some famous faces from the Stephen Harper era.

That includes campaign manager Hamish Marshall — who created and hosted websites for Ezra Levant’s Ethical Oil website, which his wife served as head of — and digital director Stephen Taylor, former director of the National Citizens Coalition (a job Stephen Harper also once held).

As noted by Sean Craig of Global News, Scheer also has associations with The Rebel, a far-right media outlet headed up by Levant, which Marshall serves as a director of.

Scheer has granted The Rebel three one-on-one interviews since late 2016.

Scheer also holds strong anti-abortion views.

Campaign Life Coalition released a statement congratulating Scheer on the win, noting that it demonstrates the “strength of the social conservative movement and importance of pro-life and pro-family voters.” He scored the second-highest ranking from the group after Brad Trost and Pierre Lemieux, both “unapologetic pro-life/pro-family candidates.”

Scheer has promised not to reopen the abortion issue. While he didn’t vote on the 2012 motion to do exactly that, he’s received support from former MPs who did, including Jason Kenney and LaVar Payne.

The Campaign Life Coalition also celebrated Scheer’s commitments to cut federal funding to post-secondary institutions that “do not respect freedom of speech” and “supporting the rights of parents as first educators of their children,” including tax credits for home schooling and independent schools.

As former Sun News pundit Michael Coren noted in a column for NOW: “This is all pretty harsh stuff, to the right of Harper and arguably even Preston Manning and Stockwell Day.”

Scheer has also voted against recent pieces of legislation to enshrine trans rights in the Canadian Human Rights Act and protect Muslim people from Islamophobia.

Despite his age, new Conservative leader Andrew Scheer sported the most conservative policies of the bunch https://t.co/iOyyqevvwQ #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/nlH5Y0h61G

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 30, 2017

Scheer Is Very, Very, Very Pro-Oil Industry

As Prime Minister, Scheer pledges that he would approve TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline, which would carry 1.1 million barrels of oil from Alberta to Quebec and New Brunswick.

That’s unqualified support — support he’s pledged regardless of any issues that could be uncovered via environmental assessments or consultations with Indigenous nations.

That same approach is featured in his promise to “prioritize federal infrastructure projects that enhance access to natural resource reserves.”

He’s also pledged to eliminate corporate welfare, including bailouts and subsidies. The obvious example is Bombardier, which has received billions in public dollars in recent decades.

However Scheer has not promised to end the annual awarding of $3.3 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil and gas companies in Canada.

In another twist, Scheer pledged to “show Canadians where their oil comes from,” including requiring gas stations to display at the pump when oil comes from “foreign countries.”

According to Scheer, “this would allow Canadian consumers to make the choice to purchase Canadian-sourced, ethically produced oil.”

Sound familiar?

Scheer Has Strong Caucus Support

Unlike other high-profile leadership candidates like Kellie Leitch and Michael Chong, Scheer concluded the race with significant caucus support.

A month before the vote, Scheer sported formal endorsements from 24 current MPs and eight senators, as well as dozens of provincial MLAs and former MPs. Only Erin O’Toole, who placed third in the race, boasted more in total.

This matters a great deal when it comes to successfully leading the party. After all, we’ve seen plenty of examples of what happens when a party dislikes its leader, often resulting in fierce infighting and the creation of huge opportunities for other parties to fill the gap. If Scheer can build on his current caucus support, he could present a strong challenge to Trudeau in 2019.

Funding Massive Projects While Somehow Eliminating the Deficit

A major Conservative attack point against the Liberals is that they’re increasing the country’s deficit beyond what they promised during the election.

It’s a fact. The Liberals promised three years of “modest short-term deficits” of less than $10 billion for the first three years, and a balanced budget in the fiscal year of 2019-2020. But as of the last federal budget, it’s predicted that Canada will hit a deficit of $23.4 billion in 2019-2, dropping to $18.8 billion in 2021-22.

While the verdict is still very much out on whether that even matters given record-low interest rates and a huge infrastructure deficit, it seems a reasonable thing to point out that the Liberals are planning to break another major promise.

So what’s Scheer’s solution? Well, to balance the budget in two years. Unless he plans to raise income taxes or reverse his former leader’s controversial decision to cut the GST from seven to five per cent (which cost the country around $14 billion per year), the only option would be to cut close to $20 billion in annual government spending.

Yet Scheer has consistently pointed to the exporting of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology as as a means to reduce global emissions, a process which costs billions in public funding.

Also left unacknowledged is the fact that Canada’s only operational “clean coal” plant, SaskPower’s Boundary Dam Unit #3, relies on a patented Shell scrubbing system — a privately owned technology that can’t be sold off by the government.

In other words, Scheer’s plan to publicly fund the design and retailing of CCS technology would require billions in public funding, rather than making private large polluters pay via carbon pricing.

That sure sounds like picking winners and losers.

He’ll Need To Build Broad Support To Have A Shot

A pre-convention poll conducted by Nanos Research on behalf of the Globe & Mail found that only 4.1 per cent of the general voting population thought that Scheer would make the best prime minister out of all the candidates.

That’s right, 4.1 per cent.

That’s compared to Maxime Bernier, who received 17.4 per cent, and Michael Chong, who received 10 per cent. A massive 33 per cent of people polled answered “not sure.” When asked if they were more likely to vote for the Conservatives if led by Scheer, only 16.6 per cent responded “somewhat likely” or “likely.” That’s almost half as much as Bernier received.

Of course, there’s plenty of time left until 2019, meaning plenty of opportunities for the Liberals to break more major promises or the NDP to pose a challenge from the left. Nothing is set in stone.

But such numbers suggest that Scheer’s got a lot of work ahead of him to convince ordinary Canadians to vote for him.

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.

For more than two decades, Mark Jaccard has been penning “report cards” about Canada’s environmental track record. The results haven’t been pretty.

Jaccard, a veteran professor in Simon Fraser University’s School of Resource and Environmental Management, notes his annual evaluations were harnessed in the mid-2000s by Stephen Harper (then serving as federal opposition leader) as arguments for why the Conservatives deserved a shot at governing the country.

Those report cards were used as “a way of saying ‘look how incompetent the Liberals are, they haven’t done anything on climate, we’re not going to achieve Kyoto but let us get into power and we will set a new target in 2020 and implement regulations immediately to achieve that target,’” Jaccard recalls.

The Conservatives eventually formed a minority government in 2006 and became the majority government after the 2011 election.

Jaccard’s latest report card, released on October 6, concludes the Conservative Party has since “implemented virtually no policies that would materially reduce emissions” despite making significant emissions pledges for 2020 and 2050.

The five-page report notes the Conservative government has scored a “failing grade” for neglecting to introduce easily realizable policies in the sectors of transportation, electricity generation, construction and industry. Jaccard concludes the absence of such actions shows “they must have had no intention” of dealing with climate change.

“I know there are a lot of people in the Conservative Party — because they talk to me — who are disgusted that the current leader is so against implementing policies that would have no political cost to him but would reduce emissions,” he says. “I don’t know what [Harper’s] issue is, I don’t try to guess what’s in his mind, but he could do so much more.”

Harper’s Climate Policies Insignificant

Of course, the Conservative government has consistently told a different tale, pointing to regulations on coal-fired power plants built after 2030 and vehicle energy efficiency rules as instances of action on the climate change front.

However, Jaccard notes there are no new coal plants planned in the near future and that vehicle efficiency standards introduced under Prime Minister Harper don’t have nearly the same impact as regulations introduced in jurisdictions like California.

In short: the policies that Harper has introduced technically exist but are by no means enough to get Canada as close as it needs to be to emissions targets.

“Any academic will give you the same answer I did,” Jaccard says. “It’s got nothing to do with partisanship.”

In the report, Jaccard outlines three primary reasons why politicians like Harper don’t act on environmental policy: the absence of compulsory policies such as carbon taxes or sector-by-sector regulations, the global nature of climate change (requiring far larger jurisdictions such as China to cut emissions before seeing obvious impacts) and the absence of an independent monitoring service that provides feedback about progress.

It’s the latter factor that Jaccard has attempted to change with the annual “report card.”

Canada’s 2020 Climate Target Now Unachievable

Jaccard also notes his conclusions aren’t born from a particular animosity towards conservative parties, pointing out that Gordon Campbell, long-time premier of British Columbia, introduced very effective climate change policies such as the Clean Energy Act while sharing similar ideological stances as Harper.

Canada’s 2020 target is now unachievable due to the country’s laggard approach, Jaccard writes.

The 2050 target, requiring a 65 per cent cut in emissions, would require “an almost complete transformation” of the economic system. As a result, every day counts.

If the country opted for an economy-wide carbon tax — a move favoured by many economists — Jaccard estimates it would need to be introduced at $50/tonne, increasing to $150/tonne by 2020 (for reference, B.C. taxes carbon at $30/tonne).

But for Jaccard, the technicalities of a future transition — whether it’s a carbon tax, cap-and-trade or sector-by-sector regulation — doesn’t matter so much as some sort of move being made. The longer the country waits, he warns, the more economically catastrophic such moves will be given the potential stranding of fossil fuel assets and compounding of climate change-related costs.

“If the Conservative Party had overthrown [Harper] in the last year, I would be saying ‘let’s see what they do,’” Jaccard concludes.

“But because they have not and given the idea of him continuing as prime minister, any of the other parties would be better.”

Image: Mark Jaccard via Running on Climate

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

In his recent book Harperism: How Stephen Harper and His Think Tank Colleagues have Transformed Canada, author and adjunct SFU professor Donald Gutstein outlines a battle being waged in Canada for the “climate of ideas.”

The Prime Minister is often thought of as a lone wolf, “the rogue conservative who marches to his own drummer.” But it’s not so, argues Gutstein. Harper is merely “one side of an ideological coin.”

The flipside is the network of key influencers — politicians, industry titans, think tanks, journalists — who work to advance not just Harper’s agenda, but the agenda of neoliberalism that serves powerful private interests, Gutstein says.

According to Gutstein, public sentiment in Canada — around things like environmental policy, free-market orthodoxy and the collection of taxes — is strongly influenced by a cadre of like-minded individuals and organizations who work in conjunction to, for example, sway public opinion on implementing a carbon tax or funding the arts.

The overall effect of this strategy has been the emergence of Harperism, a political style ruled by market logic and economic freedom. What has been lost along the way is robust democratic participation in Canadian decision-making, checks and balances, scientific integrity and the influence of civil society groups, Gutstein argues.

I recently spoke with Gutstein about attacks on environmental groups in Canada and asked him to explain how he sees this factoring into the broader political landscape.

Q: How do you see oil and gas interests, free-market think tanks and the Conservative government banding together to “neutralize,” as you say in your book, environmental opposition?

A: Harper and the think tanks rarely get together but they do work together in a very well understood way. The think tanks are working over a long period of time to change the climate of ideas. They can’t force us to think differently but they cast doubt on the motivation of environmental groups — ‘where do you get your funding?” — these questions are up in the air.

That makes it easier for Harper to do something: attack them, cut off their funding or ignore them. It makes it easier to happen today than it was 10 years ago. I do think environmental groups’ reputations have been sullied or tarnished by this constant work on them.

The articles, the op-ed pieces, the news stories with quotes from the think tanks — all this eventually changes the climate of ideas about environmentalism.

Q: I really like this idea in your book of transforming the “climate of ideas.” It sheds a light on how democracy works, or the way that opinions or perspectives are formed within a democratic setting. Things like the credibility of environmental organizations are really up for grabs in the media. You see grand claims being made, often without substantiation, that could damage the reputation of an environmental organization. I think it was Mark Twain who said ‘a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.’ How do you see this strategy of casting doubt and changing the climate of ideas at work in our democracy?

A: I’d probably need to think more about this question, but one example springs to mind: when Ezra Levant was doing his Ethical Oil campaign he would write op-eds in the Toronto Sun attacking Greenpeace, but the Toronto Sun would never give any space to Greenpeace to say what they are really about or to respond to Levant’s wild charges.

So all the readers knew about Greenpeace was what they read from Ezra Levant.

The way the media frame stories, who they give voices to — that has a lot to do with what ideas gain in credibility and get a more positive or more negative tarnish to it.

That’s just one example, but it’s a bigger picture.

I appreciate that things have changed quite a bit because of Twitter, Facebook and the internet, but I think that the corporate media still play a defining role in determining which ideas get promoted, and which ideas are ignored.

I love that quote…“If the media don’t report on an issue, it might as well not exist.” I think that’s so profound. It’s the other side of asking: which ideas do they promote, and how do they spin them, which things are credible and which are not?

I think the media still play an important role…even on the Internet. So much of what is on Facebook and Twitter are responses or commentaries to what’s in the media.

Q: Do you see certain individuals being deployed as ‘ambassadors’ of anti-environmental or free-market ideas?

A: Oh sure. That’s a long-standing strategy. Just this morning someone contacted me about an article I wrote on Rabble about John Luik, who was a frontman for the tobacco industry. He wrote all these books and papers and was secretly funded by the tobacco industry for years and years.

He’s the model. There are lots of people like this that operate as individuals. [Luik] even did work — wrote a book — for the Fraser Institute criticizing the need to regulate second-hand smoke. Individuals exist as individual personalities and in a way they can seem more credible.

Q: Do you see individuals like blogger Vivian Krause in this kind of light? She appeared on the scene as this independent researcher just asking questions on the Internet and in no time she was thrust into the national spotlight and given some of our most prominent media platforms. On her resume she even credits herself with initiating the Canada Revenue Agency investigation and audits of Canada’s environmental charities. It seems she’s become a ‘rising star’ because her narrative served the interests and needs of the Harper government and the fossil fuel industry. Do you see her falling into the typical pattern of how individuals are deployed to serve certain interests?

A: There are hundreds of millions of bloggers, so why did she rise to the top? She’s getting op-eds in the news media and it’s interesting to look at that.

She writes for the National Post, which is the most amenable to this kind of corporate propaganda. The Financial Post, which is just the business section of the National Post, is edited by Terrance Corcoran and he’s for a long time gone after ‘junk science’ and has attacked Greenpeace and the environmental movement for decades. So that would be a really good home for her.

[Krause] wouldn’t have really gotten anywhere unless corporate media and some of the industry groups started seeing the benefit of having her.

If she can take away from the harm they’re doing to the environment and move it to the supposedly nasty things that the energy industry’s critics are up to then that really gets the heat off them to a large extent.

She would be playing a pretty significant role for them.

Q: What do you anticipate happening in Canada over the next year as we move into the next federal election?

A: Well that’s an interesting one. Harper has so many files open, from the one on the First Nations property ownership act, trying to transform First Nations [reserves] into private property, but that’s sort of on hold. He moved forward on it to a point. And then the attacks on environmentalists have gone so far…it’s hard to know what he’ll focus on.

They’ve set the narrative for the next election with income-sharing and the child tax benefits.

…

If Stephen Harper is voted back in it will be unimaginable, the plans he has ready to go.

If the Harper Conservatives did get back in, it’s incremental, he would move to deregulate new areas, remove the significance of scientific information. He would find places here and there.

He would probably boost the ability of environment Canada to do financial costing of ecosystem services.

It’s never going to be a huge move, it’s always going to be these small steps, but they all add up eventually into something huge. 

Image Credit: Prime Minister's Photo Gallery

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 seems that the start of the Harper Government's $16.5 million advertising campaign to push the US to turn to Canadian energy, specifically by supporting the Keystone XL pipeline and tar sands oil production, isn't quite having the impact that the Conservatives were hoping for.

Lee-Anne Goodman writes for the Canadian Press, that "efforts by the Conservative government to sell Americans on the virtues of Canadian natural resources failed to impress those south of the border, according to a new report, and even left them puzzled over assertions that Canada is America's best friend."

The $58,000 government commissioned Harris-Decima report found that the advertising push by Natural Resources Canada left focus groups in Washington D.C. "befuddled" by the campaign's tagline, "America's best friend is America's best energy solution."

The taxpayer-funded report posted Wednesday on Library and Archives Canada found few would assume that the tagline was referring to Canada, "despite certainly considering Canada to be a good friend," further adding "some indicated that claiming you are one's best friend comes across as something one does when one is about to ask for a huge favour."

The report also observed that the focus groups were displeased with the tone of the ads, saying that the word "solution" suggested that "America had a problem that needed solving." Similarly, the report noted that "virtually all objected to the reference to Canada's ban on dirty coal as it seemed to imply that Canada is doing more than the US."

Respondents also indicated that the use of the phrase "America faces a choice" was "somewhat pushy," and didn't like the country being referred to as "America" instead of the US or the United States.

The US advertising campaign includes a website geared towards US viewers, as well as ads and promotions in influential publications that "shine a job-friendly and environmentally sensitive light on a cross-section of Canadian resource industries," reports the Canadian Press.

The campaign is part of the Harper government's plan to gain access to foreign markets for Canadian oil. The Keystone XL pipeline project would make large quantities of tar sands oil available to refineries on the US Gulf Coast. President Obama is set to make a decision on the TransCanada pipeline early next year.

The Canadian Press reports that the six focus groups in Washington D.C. told Harris-Decima researchers that "the ads, launched in the spring during the heat of the Keystone battle, could be "greatly improved" and lacked a cohesive and direct message to the American public."

Harris-Decima interviewed people in three rounds over March and April, including members of the general public and political news aficionados called "opinion elites."

"The advertising as it stands faces some challenges in conveying a consistently heard and appreciated message and could be greatly improved with some specific adjustments to tone and content," the report stated.

Respondents felt that the ads should be "less subtle" about advocating in favour of Keystone XL. The report stated that "opinion elites were fairly uniform in stating a preference for seeing mention of 'pipeline' in the copy and perhaps the imagery" based on the assumption that "the ads related to a Canadian pipeline."

"The purpose of the pre-testing was to ensure that the ads were effective. The final ads were amended based on the constructive feedback we received," said Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver.

In an email, Oliver defended the campaign, saying that it provided "specific facts about measures taken by Canada to protect the environment, and other information on responsible resource development."  

Oliver also pointed out the positive feedback from the report, which did say that "Canada is held in fairly high regard, even if it is not often considered, and that an element of that high regard relates to Canada being a competent and trustworthy neighbour/partner both in terms of industrial partnerships and acting responsibly."

The report also found that opinion elites generally felt that Canada is "more environmentally responsible" than "other oil producing countries."

But there was also more criticism stemming from confusion about the campaign's intended audience and use of "jargon" like GHG for greenhouse gases, which one focus group complained about.

Others wanted to know how exactly the Keystone XL would benefit Americans, "whether it be from increased oil imports from Canada or lower gas prices," said the report.

The government hired Leger Marketing in summer 2012 to "fine-tune" the ad campaign, reports the Canadian Press.

A similar study conducted in Canada showed that the ad campaign failed to impress Canadians in twelve focus groups across six cities. The ads were found to be lacking in "factual information" and failing to deliver "a coherent message."  After "significant modifications," a second round of focus-group testing results reportedly proved more positive.

It's uncertain whether the budget for repeated focus-group testing also comes from the $16.5 million set aside for this ad campaign. Recently Natural Resources Canada announced an additional $24-million for an international tar sands advertising campaign, designed to counter "intense and sustained public relations campaigns" against the resource.

Image Credit: Rocco Rossi / Wikimedia Commons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: World Economic Forum / Wikimedia Commons

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

The Harper government is sending several of its cabinet ministers and bureaucrats to BC starting next week to try and appease opponents of its plans to build oil pipelines to the West Coast.

Chris Hall writes for CBC News, that "Prime Minister Stephen Harper is signalling he intends to make progress on proposals to connect Alberta's oilsands with ports in British Columbia and the lucrative Asian markets beyond."

According to Hall, this initiative is in response to a report last month from Douglas Eyford, Harper's special pipelines representative in British Columbia, who indicated that negotiations with First Nations on pipelines weren't going well.

Eyford's report will not be made public, but sources told CBC News that "Eyford urged the federal government take the lead role in dealing with Indian bands on both the Gateway project and the proposed expansion of Kinder Morgan's Trans-Mountain pipeline."

First Nations leaders are to meet with Harper's delegation on September 23, in Vancouver. The delegation will include deputy ministers from Aboriginal Affairs, Natural Resources, Environment and other departments with direct oversight of the proposed pipeline projects.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, said the request to meet came on Thursday, with no preamble or agenda, and no clue as to what Ottawa's going to put on the table.

"I have a sinking feeling that perhaps they're covering their backsides in terms of a consultation record,'' Phillip said in a Vancouver interview. "And looking towards laying the groundwork that will be necessary when the decision is finally made by Prime Minister Harper and the cabinet, regardless of what the joint review panel comes forward with in terms of an approval or a rejection of these proposed projects.''

Other key ministers have also been directed by Harper to promote the pipeline projects in BC, starting Monday. They include Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, and Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt, who will be in the province all week. Transport Minister Lisa Raitt and Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq are reportedly planning trips to BC before Thanksgiving.

All of the above have requested to meet with the First Nations, according to Phillip. In addition, Premier Christy Clark also wrote to request a sit-down with them.

Phillips said he found it "very disturbing" that there was such "an urgency attached to both letters." He noted that this is the first the chiefs have heard from politicians in months.

Federal sources told CBC that "the objective is to work proactively to convince First Nations, community groups, and B.C.'s government that moving oil through the province is good for the economy, and good for them."

This new conciliatory approach from the federal Conservatives is the latest in a fall campaign to help achieve Harper's vision of Canada as an energy superpower by unlocking the country's oil deposits in Alberta for international trade.

On another front, Harper wrote a letter in late August to US President Obama, proposing joint standards for reduced greenhouse gas emissions in both countries in return for approval of the proposed $7-billion Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

Ottawa has also been trying to court BC Premier Clark's approval on the controversial Northern Gateway pipeline. Clark rejected the project in May, but has since outlined new conditions for its approval, including improved cleanup and prevention methods for oil spills and a larger share of revenues for the province. The federal government has responded to some of the demands, announcing new safety regulations for oil tankers and higher corporate liability for offshore oil spills.

But the upcoming meeting shows that Harper still sees First Nations opposition to the pipelines as one of his most significant obstacles. Hall writes that federal sources "acknowledge that Enbridge did a poor job in dealing with bands along the proposed [Northern] Gateway route," and at least three First Nations oppose US-based Kinder Morgan's proposal to triple the capacity of its Trans-Mountain pipeline from Alberta to Vancouver.

The Coldwater Indian Band will be going to court in October seeking a judicial order that would prevent Ottawa approving the expansion without their consent. Coldwater Chief Harold Aljam said that he has met with Eyford, but no one from the federal government has contacted them.

What the September 23 meeting between Harper's delegation and First Nations leaders will achieve has yet to be seen. But as Hall points out, for First Nations "the fear is the Harper government intends to push through both pipeline proposals no matter what."

Image Credit: Prime Minister's Office / Flickr

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

Last year, Canadian scientists and their supporters mourned the “Death of Evidence” in Ottawa. This year, though, they are being asked to stand up and be heard.

On Monday, “Stand Up for Science” rallies will be held in 14 cities across Canada, calling on the federal government to better support science done in the public interest.

“Many of the problems that were impetus of the Death of Evidence rally last year are still there, and if anything, things have continued to get worse,” said Dr. Katie Gibbs, one of the organizers of both Monday's rally and last year's Death of Evidence protest, in an interview with DeSmog. “This rally, we're focusing more on making suggestions for how the government could start to restore public science.”

Those suggestions include: supporting the open communication of publicly funded science to the public; using the best available science and evidence to make the best decisions; and funding scientific research from basic science through to applied.

Scientists have been increasingly critical of the Harper government's stance on publicly-funded research since they came into power in 2006.

By placing burdensome communications restrictions on employees, the Harper government has been criticized of muzzling or censoring scientists unable to openly discuss their research with the public. A movement away from basic forms of data collection – such as the axing of the mandatory long-form census in 2010 – has scientists increasingly concerned about Canada's ability to make evidence-based decisions. 

The result was the “Death of Evidence” rally that gathered 2,000 scientists and supporters in Ottawa last July. Following that success, Gibbs, a biologist, and fellow scientist Dr. Scott Findlay, a professor at the University of Ottawa in the Department of Biology, established Evidence for Democracy, a non-partisan NGO who's goal is to inform the population about the importance of what they call “public interest science.”

Despite what was seen as a successful rally last year, though, Gibbs says the situation has continued to worsen.

Restrictions on the ability of government scientists to speak publicly, for example, have continued to grow, says Gibbs who points to new policies implemented in the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Last winter the DFO instituted new policies requiring scientists to obtain upper-level bureaucratic approval before submitting research for publication in a journal. Gibbs said that this policy goes even further, requiring additional approval once a journal accepts an article for publication. “It's an additional new sign-off that people worry could be used to stifle science that [the government doesn't] want released,” she said.

These policies counter the trend in other countries, such as the US and the UK, where scientists are allowed to speak out against government policy, so long as they preface it by saying that they are not speaking on behalf of the government, said Gibbs.

The ability to speak out is crucial, Findlay told DeSmog, since scientists have a crucial role to play in policy-making. “There is a real place for scientists in political debate and in public policy for the simple reason that all public policy is really just science,” he explained.

Also worsening is the situation around science funding, said Gibbs. While total public funding for science and technology has dropped by 12 per cent in the past four years, according to a recent Statistics Canada report, that isn't Gibbs and Findlay's primary concern. The issue is where the money is going.

Of the $454-million in new research and development funding announced by the federal government for 2013, nearly all of it was slotted for public-private partnerships, in large part for commercialization, wrote Findlay in the National Post last April.

Science and technology funding in increasingly directed away from basic research, where ideas are explored regardless of their profit-making potential. The government's current approach is short-sighted, said Findlay, since cutting funding for basic research will reduce the amount of new ideas that could be marketable in the long-run.

While government actions are of great concern, the primary target for the rally is the public at large, say the organizers.

Their hope is to draw the public's attention to the importance of scientific research for government policy-making, including the social sciences.

Gibbs points to the Conservative government’s decision to implement mandatory minimum sentences in order to reduce crime rates. Reviewing the research on the impact of mandatory minimum sentences in other jurisdictions, she says the clear result is that crime rates do not drop. Adopting mandatory minimum sentences in Canada as a way to reduce crime rates goes against evidence-based decision-making and demonstrates the need to pressure the government to change its approach, said Gibbs.

“I think we've got to restore the health of Canadian science and that we need to take preventative measures, and that will only happen if we convince people of the importance of public interest science,” said Findlay. “I would consider this a success even if the federal government does nothing, if Canadians started to say, 'Oh, I didn't realize that public interest science was so important to me and my welfare.'

“I want people to not only stand up for science, but to actually start to take a bit of ownership of public interest science.”

Information on the Stand Up For Science rallies, taking place across Canada on Monday, Sept. 16, can be found at https://evidencefordemocracy.ca/.

Image Credit: Richard Webster via Death of Evidence.

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.

Documents from Public Safety Canada, released under access to information legislation, say that natural disasters and the rising cost they incur are the country's biggest public safety risk.

According to the documents, a human resources and briefing plan released to Global News, Canada's current emergency response infrastructure may be insufficient to manage a large-scale disaster. A federal program designed to aid the provinces in emergency will undergo an assessment for its "sustainability," the documents state. 

The briefing plan, written by Deputy Minister Francois Guimont, lists the "top 3 risks" for 2013-2014, with natural disasters and their costs at number one.

The document states that "worldwide costs of natural disasters have increased steadily from an annual average of losses of $25 million in the 1980s to $130 billion in the 2000(s)." This "recent, dramatic increase," writes Guimont, "indicates a broader trend in Canada and globally."

The rising costs of natural disasters "may increase the federal liability" of the Government of Canada under the Disaster Finance Assistance Arrangements (DFAA), a federal plan designed to distribute disaster recovery funds to the provinces, the documents note. Under the DFAA Ottawa will cover up to 90 per cent of a province's eligible costs. The DFAA will be assessed by Public Safety Canada "to ensure program sustainability."

According to Public Safety Canada, the government has paid out more than $2.3 billion since 1970.

Natural disasters are getting more expensive, however, with the Alberta floods alone costing an estimated $5 billion.

The second highest risk noted in the file is the government's inability to respond to natural disasters through the Government Operations Centre, which provides federal emergency response at the national level.

"The Government Operations Centre (GOC) infrastructure may be unable to support a coordinated response to large-scale or multiple significant events affecting the national interest," says the document.

Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney did not provide comment on the documents although a department spokesman told Global News the government committed to speaking with the provinces and territories to discuss disaster mitigation.

Spokesman Jean Paul Duval said in an email that the government recognizes "that mitigation can lessen the impact of natural disasters on vulnerable communities and reduce the costs associated with these events." He added that the department has been "working diligently" to address the problems facing the GOC.

"The Government's response to a number of events this year, such as the flooding in Alberta, demonstrates our ability to manage the risk at this time," said Duval.

The document says that the GOC needs to be moved to "a new accommodation if it is to contribute to the department's mandate," because it is "housed in a building that Public Works and Government Services Canada intends to remove from the federal government inventory within the next three years."

NDP national defence critic Jack Harris says that the Conservatives aren't doing enough to prepare for the rise in natural disasters, reports Stone. "We don't see this government taking seriously the notion that climate change is going to have more serious implications in the future," said Harris.

York University professor Ali Asgary, who teaches in the emergency management program, said the uncertainty about the GOC's ability to respond to disasters is "a real concern."

According to the documents Public Safety Canada plans to develop a "National Resilience Strategy" to reduce the "occurence and negative impacts of disasters." 

Global News writes this strategy will involve "empowering citizens, emergency response, organizations, communities and governments to share the responsibility to prevent hazards from becoming disasters."

The third risk outlined in the document is the possible insufficiency of current policies to address the evolution of organized crime.

Image Credit: Wayne Stadler / Flickr

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

Government records newly released under access to information legislation say that Canada supports carbon pricing as part of a global climate change strategy.

Mike De Souza writes for Postmedia News, that the documents "come from the Privy Council Office and Environment Canada, and they contrast with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's public criticism of carbon taxes."

As De Souza explains, the Privy Council Office (PCO) is "the central department in the government that supports the prime minister's office."

The PCO notes were reportedly prepared for the November 2011 G20 summit attended by Harper a month before Canada's pullout from the Kyoto Protocol. They highlight the World Bank's recommendation for "putting a price on carbon for developed countries," and comment that "Canada could support other countries implementing this proposal."

The PCO records also say that "Canada supports the development of new market-based mechanisms that expand the scale and scope of carbon markets." De Souza adds that the records suggest Canada "wanted to expand markets that require polluters to pay and allow other companies to profit from deploying technologies or other methods to reduce emissions in the atmosphere."

The Environment Canada documents were notes given to Deputy Environment Minister Bob Hamilton after he was appointed in July 2012, briefing him on the potential for job creation and economic growth in a strong climate change strategy.

The notes say that a "well-designed environmental policy, including GHG emission reduction policies, can also support economic objectives, in areas such as innovation, improved energy and resource productivity, and opportunities in global clean technology markets."

The briefing observes that "environmental damage and natural resource degradation can have important economic costs" in addition to posing "serious" and "significant impacts on human health and safety…and ecosystems in Canada and throughout the world."

Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq's spokeswoman told Postmedia News "that the government does not support a carbon tax," reiterated the Harper government's position "that an NDP climate change proposal from the last election to raise billions of dollars by auctioning of pollution permits as part of a market-based carbon pricing scheme — was a tax on gas, groceries, electricity and everything else."

Aglukkaq's office said Canada is "playing a leadership role in addressing climate change."

De Souza writes that despite all major Canadian federal political parties supporting carbon pricing in the 2008 federal elections, "the Conservatives later decided to favour binding regulations in each industrial sector instead, because of the failure of the U.S. Congress to pass legislation creating a carbon market."

Several provinces have implemented their own forms of carbon pricing or taxes on greenhouse gas emissions, such as British Columbia's highly-successful tax on buying or using fuel.

The Environment Canada briefing notes suggested Canada inteded to meet its "GHG emission reduction target of 17% under 2005 levels by 2020," especially with "greater international pressure to demonstrate concrete action and to outline how Canada's national emissions targets will be met." A new report from Environmental Defence shows Canada cannot, however, met its emission reduction targets given current planned expansion in the tar sands – Canada's fastest source of growing GHGs.

Image Credit: Prime Minister's Office / Fickr

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 Harper government followed the advice of industry associations when making controversial changes to the Fisheries Act in the 2012 omnibus budget bills, documents relased through access to information legislation reveal.

Gloria Galloway writes for the Globe and Mail that in 2010, "the High Park Group consulting firm was commissioned by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to gather industry and business observations about the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act."

The released documents show that phrasing regarding changes to fisheries protections "suggest that wording was offered by industry associations," according to Galloway.

Negative feedback from the 23 organizations consulted, including the Canadian Electricity Association (CEA), the Canadian Hydropower Association (CHA) and the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce (SKCC), correlates with changes made to legislation protecting fish and their habitats.

For example, the consultant's report said that "CEA/CHA and SKCC call for modification of the act's definition of 'fishery' to clarify that it refers to 'commercial, recreational, subsistence or aboriginal use of fish as a resource."

One of the biggest changes made in Bill C-38 was, as Galloway points out, the removal of "broad protections that covered all fish habitats," narrowing the focus of the law to protect only fish "that are part of a commercial, recreational or aboriginal fisheries, or to fish that support such a fishery."

Incidentally, the High Park Group reportedly noted that there was a "lack of cogent and substantive documentation of industry positions on the issue" of concerns about the pre-2012 Fisheries Act, as well as a lack of evidence to back up claims including "that it was too unpredictable, that it caused considerable barriers to infrastructure investment, and that it increased regulatory costs and timelines."

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans didn't neglect to also consult with environmental groups about the Fisheries Act, having done so between 2006 and 2009. It appears feedback from environmental groups did not figure as heavily in the changes ultimately made.

In fact, another report released by the department under access to information said that environmental groups called the Fisheries Act "one of the strongest laws in Canada that can be used to protect our environment" and called for it to be strengthened and enforced.

Andrew Gage of West Coast Environmental Law, one of the environmental groups consulted by the DFO, said the Harper Conservatives are "a government listening only to industry concerns."

The DFO reportedly said in an e-mail that they're "still focusing on preserving fish habitat," but using a "common-sense approach that focuses on managing threats to Canada's recreational, commercial and aboriginal fisheries and the fish and fish habitat on which they depend."

Critics of the changes to the Fisheries Act include Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, who said the DFO created "a new definition for what a fishery is and completely [ignored] the comments from a wide consultation from people on the ground who are actually protecting the fishery."

This isn't the first time that the Harper government has proven its commitment to putting 'natural resources development' and industry interests ahead of environmental protection.

Other documents released through access to information requests have already revealed that the federal government solicited industry support for environmental reforms written into the Omnibus Budget Bill C-38. Additonal documents show the government made pipeline development a top priority for that bill, at the fossil fuel industry's request, and further colluded with the oil and gas industry when tweaking the bill's environmental legislation and industrial project review process.

Image Credit: Geoffrey Kehrig / Flickr

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

British Columbia's five-year old carbon tax has managed to cut personal and corporate taxes, slash climate-wrecking carbon emissions and be an economic success story according a study published this week. Plus it's popular with the public. That's a stunning win-win-win-win.

And yet for nearly a year Conservative MPs have launched relentless attacks on the very idea of carbon tax in the House of Commons. In 41 days the House of Commons was in session this year, Conservative MP after Conservative MP rose in the House to issue dire warnings about a carbon tax more than 250 times. And the issue was not even on the table.

Who are these Conservative MPs working for?

Thanks to the carbon tax BC residents enjoy the lowest income tax in the country (not Albertans), use the least amount of fuel per person and have arguably the healthiest economy the study found. So much for the Tories baseless claims of doom and gloom.

"If you look at the real evidence the BC carbon tax is a remarkable success," said Stewart Elgie, lead author of the "BC’s Carbon Tax Shift After Five Years: Results" study and professor of law and economics at University of Ottawa.

The innovative BC policy increases taxes on things people don't want: carbon pollution, and reduces taxes on things people do want: incomes and earnings. It's more accurate to call it a carbon tax shift. Here's how it works: a carbon levy was gradually added to the costs of fossil fuels while income (personal and corporate) taxes were cut. It is revenue neutral so the BC government collected the same amount of overall taxes.

After five years the carbon tax on gasoline is now 7 cents a litre. BC's per person fuel consumption dropped an astonishing 17.4% after four years. (data for the fifth year is not yet compiled) In the rest of Canada fuel consumption went up 1.5%. While gas might be a bit more expensive, BC residents are actually saving money by using far less. And as a bonus their taxes have gone down. Win-Win.

Emission Cut Score: BC 10, Canada 1

Total carbon (greenhouse gas) emissions in BC declined 10% over the first four years of the carbon tax much better than the 1.1% decline across Canada according to data from Environment Canada.

Canada had 20 years to meet its Kyoto Protocol target of a 6% emission reduction and failed. The Harper government claimed the target was impossible and turned Canada into the first nation to pull out of the international agreement. Amazingly BC's smart government policy achieved 10% reduction in only 4 years and its economy is doing slightly better than the rest of Canada. Win-Win.

"It's not a trade off between the economy or the environment. Nor between jobs and the environment. Those are false choices," Elgie told DeSmog.

"Many business leaders know that industries and regions that have high levels of energy efficiency and low levels of pollution will be the winners." 

There is widespread support for putting a price on carbon across Canada. The Council of Canadian Chief Executives have endorsed a national carbon tax. Most oil companies support this as well said Elgie.

Canadians get it as well. A recent poll conducted by Harris-Decima found that 62% of Canadians agree that “a Canadian energy strategy will only be successful if it transitions Canada to a low-carbon economy"

The Carbon Tax, BC's most popular tax

BC's Gordon Campbell-led Liberals deserve credit for having the courage to be leaders said Elgie. An important lesson for policy makers is that the Campbell government did not pay a political price for being ahead of the curve. In fact in an election soon after the carbon tax shift went into effect they gained more support. "It may have helped them a bit."

Today polls show that nearly 65% of all BC residents support the carbon tax. It's hard to imagine any other tax with that level of support.

While this is one of the best designed carbon taxes in the world it could use some improvement said Elgie. It currently exempts venting and fugitive emissions from the oil and gas sector. As previously documented by DeSmog those emissions are huge and drastically underreported. Moreover BC's Christy Clark government's proposed strategy for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports will make it impossible to achieve the legislated goal of a 33% reduction in emissions by 2020 without properly taxing all emissions from gas production.

"Taxing pollution and lowering income taxes is the best way to build a greener and stronger economy. The world is moving in that direction and Canada risks being left behind," said Elgie.

BC brings made-in-Canada proof that a carbon tax shift is the most cost-effective way to build the clean and green economy Canadians want. “Our future prosperity is too important to be trapped in senseless partisan politics. Canada desperately needs statesmen to fight for our long term interests.”

So who are Conservative MPs working for when they make unsubstantiated attacks on carbon taxes? 

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.