On September 10 Alberta Environment Minister Diana McQueen announced Alberta’s new wetland policy at the Clifford E. Lee Nature Sanctuary, a protected marshland near Devon, Alberta.

Eight years in the making, the policy would be a step in the right direction if the timeline didn’t allow for the destruction of thousands more hectares of environmentally precious land before it goes into effect in 2015.

According to environmental groups, the approximately 195 projects currently underway or awaiting approval would be exempt from the new policy, including tens of thousands of hectares of wetlands destroyed without recourse. This would be on top of the approximately 28,000 hectares of wetland already destroyed by tar sands mining.

Wetlands make up 60 per cent of the 4750 square kilometers of mineable land in Northern Alberta. The lands are home to a diverse number of species, including Caribou, which are currently endangered in Northern Alberta. They act as a water filter and moderate spring run off. They are also important to traditional land use for indigenous communities.

The vast swaths of wetlands in Northern Alberta come in diverse forms, including peat lands, which act as a powerful carbon trap. Because their delicate ecosystems have developed over centuries, they will be difficult and costly to replace.

Mining equipment clears the "overburden" at a mining project in a wetland rich boreal forest in Northern Alberta

Like much of the environmental legislation in Alberta, the publically visible bill is light on specifics.

Oilsands director at the Pembina Institute Jennifer Grant points out that one of the worrisome questions in the policy as it’s written is the issue of “non-replacement mitigation” of wetland destruction. Rather than forcing companies to replace the wetlands they destroy, the policy allows them to put money into research and development or wetlands education.

“They could just pay into a fund that promotes the values of wetlands, which is ironic,” she says.

From the beginning, the environmental think tank and many other environmental groups in Alberta have advocated for a “no-net-loss” policy, which means that industry would have to replace every hectare it damages.

The original draft of the policy put forth in 2008 by environmental consulting firm Aquality recommended that “no-net-loss” policy.

However, two members of the 25-member water council objected: the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and the Alberta Chamber of Resources (ACR). They wrote a letter to the Ministry of Environment stating that the proposed policy would cost the companies they represent “billions of dollars” and urged the Alberta government to delay introduction of any policy. The province capitulated and went back to the drawing board.

“We are very much concerned that [the policy] has been significantly undermined,” Carolyn Campbell of the Alberta Wilderness Association told Canadian Press at the time. “We are worried that by caving in to one sector’s request, we would weaken our wetland policy across the province.”

With new policy, Grant worries that the government’s implementation of this policy might be as lax as their implementation of tailings ponds legislation they made in 2009.

“They were talking some tough talk, saying if companies don’t meet these rules, they’re not going to be able to operate in this province,” she remembers. “When you look at the lack of compliance over time, it’s actually gotten worse, not better.”

In June, the Energy Resources Conservation Board released a report saying that companies in Northern Alberta have “failed to meet their commitments” in dealing with the dangerous liquid waste reservoirs that are a key feature of tar sands mining.

“The regulator said, you know what? That’s okay,” says Grant. “We don’t want to put too many onerous conditions on companies. We’re going to choose not to enforce right now and we’ll consider enforcing in 2015.”

Image Credit: Mark Elliot via Flickr

Image Credit: The Pembina Institute via Flickr

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

It’s no secret that the province of Alberta, the government Canada, and the titans of the fossil fuel industry pride themselves on robust regulatory and oversight structures when it comes to the extraction of natural resources.

"Environmental protection is a priority for our government and Canada is a global environmental leader," said Canada’s Natural Resources Minister, Joe Oliver. "This is why Canada's oil sands are subject to some of the most stringent environmental regulations and monitoring in the world."

"The regulations that are in place are very stringent, the most stringent in North America and certainly around the world," added Alberta’s Minister of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Diana McQueen. "We have a lot of development in this province, but we also have very tough regulations with regards to any spills that happen."

"The system is working," continued Alberta Energy Regulator CEO Jim Ellis. "We have the resources we need now to properly regulate it. And that includes compliance, on the ground inspections, regulations… They are capably handling the workload right now."

"It was extremely frustrating. I just reached a point where I was so frustrated I said, 'I'm going to do whatever it takes to extract this information' because I just felt wronged by the whole process," said Timoney. "It just seems like it’s a process that’s designed not to release information but rather to appear to release information."

"When you've looked at thousands of these records, what we're seeing is the tip of the iceberg," added Timoney. "It was evident that there were thousands of incidents the public didn't know anything about."

"Not every incident is going to result in a compliance action," responded Alberta Environment spokesperson Jessica Potter when asked about such a low rate of enforcement. "The determination as to whether or not we move forward with an enforcement action entirely depends on what we find in that investigation."

In short, as both Timoney and the study are at pains to point out, the governments of Alberta and Canada are "absolutely not" doing enough to enforce regulations. "There is this disconnect between the statement from the government that we have these great regulations and we’re strictly enforcing them, and the reality, which is that there are thousands of violations about which they do nothing."

"I feel very strongly that the public has a right to know what’s happening," concluded Timoney. "In this situation, what we’re trying to do is say, 'Decide for yourself. Here’s the information that we gathered. If you wish to decide that environmental management in the bitumen sands region is good or bad, here's a set of information that you can look at to decide for yourself.'"

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

The Canadian government is working hard behind the scenes to cover up the negative effects that tar sands extraction is having on the local environment, wildlife, communities and the global climate. According to Access to Information documents obtained by Postmedia's Mike De Souza, the Stephen Harper government has actively suppressed the release of vital information regarding the spread of tar sands contamination by muzzling federal scientists.

The gag order, according to De Souza, came on the heels of a newly researched government report in November 2011 which confirmed the findings of University of Alberta scientists Erin N. Kelly and David Schindler. The scientists discovered concentrations of toxics such as heavy metals were higher near tar sands operations, showing a positive correlation between tar sands activity and the spread of contaminants in the local environment.

The government of Canada and the government of Alberta denied the correlation, saying local waterways tested showed no signs of toxic contamination and reports of mutated and cancerous fish downstream from the tar sands were unfounded.

The document uncovered by De Souza shows that federal scientists who could confirm the University of Alberta results were restricted from speaking to the media: "If scientists are approached for interviews at the conference, the [Environment Canada] communications policy will be followed by referring the journalist to the media relations…phone number. An appropriate spokesperson will then be identified depending on journalist questions."

Federal scientists were also given a list of scripted responses, explaining government tests in the spring of 2010 showed no toxics in the Athabasca River and established no links between contaminants and abnormal and sick fish.

Scientists were also directed to avoid questions regarding environmental monitoring of the tar sands and the role Environment Canada plays in the region with this scripted line: "I am a scientist. I'm not in a position to answer that question but I'd be happy to refer you to an appropriate spokesperson."

David Schindler, co-author of the 2010 University of Alberta study commented, "it is a good study, and [the author] is a very fine young scientist, who should be trusted to comment on her own results."

"Similarly, Derek Muir, her supervisor and co-author, is one of the world's top contamination experts, and Canadians should be ashamed that he cannot discuss results directly with the public, but must go through an official spokesperson."

In 2010, the results of Kelly and Schindler's contaminant analysis caused an uproar in Alberta and federal governments. Eager to promote expansion in the tar sands, the Canadian government failed to install a sound and independent monitoring system for the region.

Any data used to support the government's official position, that no contamination had occurred, was supplied by the oil and gas industry.

Schindler conducted a basic analysis of waterways in the region, sampling water both upstream from tar sands operations, and downstream. What Schindler and his team discovered was a considerable accumulation of pollutants in water downstream from tar sands development which includes open-pit mining and refining.

Most notably, Schindler discovered that airborne pollutants were being deposited on land, far from contaminated waterways like the Athabasca River. It was Schindler who first recognized the role snow was playing in the transportation and depositing of tar sands pollution.

These land-based pollutants mirrored contamination of waterways. Schindler found that "embryos of fish exposed to oilsands' water and sediment have very high rates of mortality, and among the survivors, there are very high rates of deformities."

His research confirmed the concerns of local communities, First Nations and environmental groups that the fast-tracking of tar sands expansion without careful monitoring was having negative effects on the environment and those living downstream.

The findings also contradicted research conducted by the industry/government group Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP), a group Schindler claims "violated every rule" of long-term study.

In perhaps one of Canada's most scandalous moments in recent history, Dr. Schindler was publicly discredited by the provincial and federal government. His research and his credibility were called into question when the Alberta government went on record to say his study – which was published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – was biased and that contaminants in the region's watershed occur naturally and not as a result of industrial activities.

The treatment Schindler received as a result of his research concerned scientists across Canada, many of whom felt the federal government was conduction a 'witch hunt' to silence information that might fuel opposition to the tar sands.

Schindler's experience was just one of many reasons why scientists from across Canada held a mock memorial this summer on Parliament Hill, mourning the "Death of Evidence," caused by the muzzling of scientists by the federal government.

The motto of the event was clear: "Stephen Harper Hates Science."

To this day no clear environmental monitoring program is in place to track and analyze the effects that tar sands extraction and refining has on the local environment. Last month the Alberta government announced the creation of a new scientific body to monitor the impacts of development, which Diana McQueen, the province's Environment Minister, suggests will be 'credible' and operate at an 'arms-length' from industry and government. The plan, however, has yet to take any real shape.

"This is yet another plan to develop a plan," said Greenpeace energy and climate campaigner Mike Hudema. "There is still no funding commitment and no clear governance model to ensure independence. The province should stop approving new projects based on flawed data and incomplete information until this gets sorted out."

Image credit: Jodi Stark

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.