Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould said the federal government holds the constitutional power to force through the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline but that doing so would follow the “misguided position of the Conservatives.”

The comments, released Tuesday in a 2015 letter submitted by Wilson-Raybould to the democracy advocacy organization, Dogwood Initiative, comes as Canadians await the federal government’s decision on the Trans Mountain and other pipelines expected this afternoon.

In her letter Wilson-Raybould argues Canada needs “greater citizen engagement in decision making.”

“In some ways Kinder Morgan is more complicated than Northern Gateway as it is a proposed expansion of an existing line,” Wilson-Raybould wrote. “I wonder if the Trans Mountain pipeline would ever have been approved in the first place if it was being proposed today?”

The letter casts light on the federal government’s broken promises when it comes to public involvement in pipeline project decision-making. On the campaign trail Justin Trudeau promised to send the Trans Mountain pipeline project review back to the drawing board under a new and improved environmental assessment process.

Trudeau later backtracked, admitting Trans Mountain would not be required to undergo a more robust environmental review. A recent report from a three person ministerial panel tasked with assessing the review process found the pipeline should not be approved without serious consideration of the project's impacts on indigenous rights, Canada's climate committments and marine mammal safety. The Trans Mountain review process has been called "fatally flawed."

Kai Nagata, communications director for Dogwood, said the letter highlights the government's departure from its election promises.

"I think this survey response highlights the gap between what people believed they were voting for and what they'll get if Kinder Morgan is approved," Nagata told DeSmog Canada. "At Dogwood we put a lot of faith in our political representatives, and work hard to give them the benefit of the doubt. That's why we went to such great efforts to engage with candidates across the province last year, and that's why people will feel so deeply betrayed if this Texas tanker project is approved."

Nagata added the pipeline's approval would put Wilson-Raybould in a difficult position.

"It certainly highlights the terrible position she'll be in as a B.C. MP, as an Indigenous lawyer and longtime advocate for First Nations rights — now forced to carry water for a government that clearly doesn't take those obligations seriously."

"If Kinder Morgan is approved over the objections of 17 B.C. First Nations, on the basis of Harper's National Energy Board review, I don't know if Wilson-Raybould will be left with much chance but to resign. It's impossible to reconcile her election promises to constituents last year with what will unfold if Trudeau forces through an approval of Kinder Morgan."

#KinderMorgan Approval Would Be ‘Misguided’ Says Justice Minister in Newly Surfaced Letter https://t.co/tnwsy8rMEZ #cdnpoli #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 30, 2016

Prior to the last federal election, Trudeau stated only communities — and not governments — are capable of giving permission for pipeline projects.

In her letter, the Justice Minister reiterated the sentiment: “There is no longer one government or person that can legally or socially make the final decision on this, or any other pipeline.”

The full text of Wilson-Raybould’s letter can be read below:

The question, “Who should make the final decision on Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion?” really speaks to our evolving system of multi-level governance in Canada and the need for greater citizen engagement in decision-making. In some ways Kinder Morgan is more complicated than Northern Gateway as it is a proposed expansion of an existing pipeline. I wonder if the Trans Mountain pipeline would ever have been approved in the first place if it was being proposed today?

To answer the question though, it can be argued the federal government is responsible for pipelines and could try and use its constitutional muscle to push it through in the “national interest.” This, I believe, is the misguided position of the Conservatives. In reality, as with Northern Gateway, this is not going to happen, as there is no longer one government or person that can legally or socially make the final decision on this, or any other pipeline.

In the case of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline it will have a significant impact on our quality of life and local economy. Like all of you reading this, I am concerned, as should be every resident of the Lower Mainland, that this proposal may be approved without proper consideration of the impacts on our land, our waters, and First Nations. Clearly, the recent protests on Burnaby Mountain underscore the difficulty the proponent will have in obtaining a social licence for this proposal. And the recent oil spill in English Bay reminded us of what can happen without solid environmental protections (please see my blog).

Justin and the Liberal party have made it very clear that all energy infrastructure projects must earn the trust of communities if they are to proceed, and that any and all projects must not place our lands, waterways, and ecosystems at risk.

Further, we believe in the need to respect Aboriginal title and rights, including treaty rights. In BC this is of particular importance where serious weight must be given to the issue of un-extinguished Aboriginal title and the requirement for “consent” if projects cross unceded Aboriginal title lands. This situation applies in both the case of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain and Northern Gateway.

The Liberal party understands that in order to properly assess the impact of proposed projects Canada needs open, clear and efficient processes that have reasonable, even-handed rules, clear beginning and ending points, so ultimately decisions can be relied on. We need to restore public trust around processes for approval for resource and industrial development projects.

Unfortunately, and due to Mr. Harper’s actions, we no longer have this in Canada. The Conservatives have eviscerated the environmental assessment process previous Liberal governments had brought into law. A Liberal government will launch an immediate, public review of Canada’s current environmental assessment processes, and based on this review, will replace Mr. Harper’s changes to the environmental assessment process, with a new, comprehensive, timely, and fair process.

For me this is incredibly important and necessary as we start to assess the impact of our actions and seriously address climate change.

Image: Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould 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.

Christy Clark recently turned down the opportunity to limit foreign and corporate donations to political parties in campaigns. She justified her position by simply stating, “I represent everyone.”   Yet a new poll conducted by Insights West found the vast majority of British Columbians — 86 per cent — support a ban on both corporate and union political donations.   The poll, conducted on behalf of the Dogwood Initiative, a democracy advocacy organization, suggests Clark’s cozy relationship with major foreign and corporate donors could put her in the hot seat leading into the province’s next election.   That seat is likely to be even hotter after revelations Clark takes a cut of funds donated to the B.C. Liberal party through exclusive cash-for-access events that can cost up to $20,000 dollars to attend.   A high percentage of B.C. Liberal donors, 81 per cent, and an even higher number of B.C. NDP voters, 91 per cent, support putting a ban on corporate and union donations before the next election.

B.C. has long been called the “wild west of campaign donations” because, unlike most other provinces in Canada, it has no rules to prevent unlimited, foreign, union and corporate money from pouring into elections.    It’s a problem the Dogwood Initiative would like to see remedied through its Ban Big Money campaign before British Columbians hit the polls in early 2017. The group’s recent House of Cards-esque trailer for the corrupting influence of money in B.C. elections has been viewed on Facebook over 85,000 times.

BC's House of Cash

With apologies to Netflix, here's the high-stakes drama British Columbians can't get enough of: http://BanBigMoney.ca #BanBigMoney

Posted by Dogwood Initiative on Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Kai Nagata, energy and democracy director at Dogwood, said B.C. has created a situation “that has made bribery legal.”   He said the recent spate of arrests of cabinet ministers in Quebec on corruption and fraud charges were for activities “commonplace and totally protected by law in B.C.”   Recent Elections B.C. data on 2015 political donations shows that since 2005 the B.C. Liberal party raised $70.2 million from corporate and business donors. In that same period three donors exceeded donations of one million: Encana Corporation at $1.1 million, the Aquilini Group ($1.2 million) and Teck Resources ($2.3 million).

“So you ask companies, ‘why would you donate that money to a political party?’ It’s not charity; it’s an investment because you get something back,” Nagata said.   “You get policy decidedly tilted in favour of people who are able to fund political campaigns and ordinary citizens have their voices diluted in this process.”   “You go anywhere in this province and it’s hard not to see that virtually everything is for sale,” Nagata said, listing contracts for the Site C dam, B.C.’s trophy hunting, U.S. coal exports, LNG projects and the contemptible Vancouver real estate scene.   “There are a lot of decisions by government —decisions or calculated inaction — that amount to outcomes that are against public interest.”   “In B.C. because laws are so permissive people can donate unlimited amounts of money from overseas,” Nagata said. “So you don’t even have to be from Canada to have a say in public policy in B.C.”   Dermod Travis from IntegrityBC said there are a number of issues with political donations in B.C. that cause him concern.   “The most concerning thing is that money is being donated by corporations and individuals that can’t vote in the province,” Travis said. “If you can’t check a ballot, you shouldn’t be allowed to donate funds.”   Travis said British Columbians are worried about the level of influence companies like Encana and Teck Resources are able to purchase with consistently large donations.   “With Encana you see exactly what kind of sweetheart deals people have come to expect,” he said.   Travis said the BC Liberals consistently award contracts to companies that are party donors.   “Look at the companies that Partnerships B.C. has awarded construction contracts to and you will see a direct correlation between being contracts and being a donor to the BC Liberals.”   “People don’t have enough assurance the government is protecting the public’s interest, rather than corporate interests,” he said.   Travis also criticized the data publicly released by Elections B.C., saying the documents aren’t easily searchable which creates convenient loopholes for individuals who want to mask their donations.   “There are little tricks that get played in the process,” Travis said. “I’ll use my own name as an example: if you were to use the Elections B.C. database and search Dermod Travis any donations I made as Dermod J. Travis would not show up and that’s a problem.”   Both individuals and companies take advantage of this “initial game,” Travis said, “you might be left with the impression it was done deliberately so you couldn’t find their donations.”   He said an outright ban on corporate donations and a strict cap on individual donations would eliminate that problem.   “I think it creates an incredible level of cynicism that’s going to take a long time to remove even with a ban on these types of donations,” Travis said.   “It creates sense that there are winners and losers and the only way to be a winner is to be a donor.”   By leaving donor rules so open, government is fostering a sense of mistrust in the public, Nagata said.   “By refusing to take action to limit corporate money in elections they are leaving the question to voters: is government making decisions on behalf of citizens and in the public interest or are those decisions informed by the amount of money donated to politicians’ campaigns by these large corporations?”   “Obviously you don’t give someone a million dollars and say do whatever you want. There’s an expectation of a quid pro quo,” Nagata said.   “Citizens can’t collectively donate that amount of money to balance that influence — all you have is your vote,” Nagata said. “People don’t even do that because they feel cynical about the whole process.”   “That’s what we see, that’s our diagnosis. It seems the solution is simple: the government could restore public trust by not taking money from these outside influences and ensure they are making decisions on behalf of those who elected them.”

For more on political donations and how they cost taxpayers money, watch Kai Nagata break it down in this video below:  

How corruption can increase your tax bill

B.C.'s weak political donation laws leave the door open to corruption. Corruption destroys democracy and costs taxpayers, too. Join the movement to #BanBigMoney in B.C. politics: www.BanBigMoney.ca

Posted by Dogwood Initiative on Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Image: Province of British Columbia/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.

The federal government announced on Wednesday the upstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with pipeline projects will be taken into consideration when federal cabinet makes its decisions on pipeline projects.

“We are considering direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions,” Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, said. McKenna along with Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr made the announcement.

“Today’s announcement is a great step forward and shows the federal government is listening to Canadians,” Kai Nagata, Dogwood Initiative’s energy and democracy director, told DeSmog Canada. “The dark days of the National Energy Board are coming to an end.”

The new measures will apply to pipeline projects currently under regulatory review, such as Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain and TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline projects, according to Carr. Five principles that proposed pipelines will be measured against were unveiled. One of those includes "meaningful consultation" for Indigenous peoples.

“This is a real test of this government’s commitments to uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples," said Clayton Thomas-Muller, 350.org’s Stop it at the Source Campaigner. "At the heart of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the right to free, prior and informed consent. That means Indigenous Peoples have the right to say ‘No’ when it comes to projects like pipelines and its responsibility of the government to listen.”

The changes are too little, too late, according to Ecojustice lawyer Karen Campbell.

“These interim measures are a welcome band-aid, but they are not enough to inject science and evidence-based decision-making into the Kinder Morgan review process," Campbell said. "The outcome of the National Energy Board review must still be to reject this project, until the flaws in the application are remedied, and the full regional impacts of the project are fully considered.”

Both ministers were clear upstream and direct GHG emissions will be “a factor in the decision making process." How much weight a project’s GHG emissions will be given compared to its economic benefits is unclear.

“Climate plays into the economic viability of these projects,” Adam Scott, climate and energy program manager with Environmental Defence Canada, said. “How do these projects fit into a world of high carbon taxes and shifting away from oil?”

Like Nagata, Scott says he is “very encouraged” the federal government is listening to Canadians. However, he is concerned Carr, although acknowledging the problems with the current National Energy Board, is still allowing the review of Energy East to go ahead without reforming the board first. The National Energy Board is Canada’s federal pipeline regulator.

“There’s no legal reason for Energy East to go through the old broken process,” Scott told DeSmog Canada. “The review hasn’t even started yet and the board has not determined if TransCanada’s application is complete.”

Wednesday’s announcement has little effect on the workings of the National Energy Board itself. The Environment Ministry, not the Board, will conduct the assessments of a project’s greenhouse gas emissions. The five principles are transition measures to be kept in place until an overhaul of the NEB can take place.

McKenna said revamping the board could take “a number of years.”

The federal government will also extend the timeframes in which decisions on Energy East and Trans Mountain must be made. Legislative changes under the previous Conservative government mandated that proposed pipelines made it through the regulatory process within 15 months.

An extra six months will now be tacked on to the review of the Energy East pipeline. For the Trans Mountain pipeline, which is in its final round of hearings, no federal decision will be made until December of this year.

“The fact there’ll be no construction on Trans Mountain this summer is good news for people of B.C.’s Lower Mainland,” Nagata said.

The extra time is meant to give the federal government more time to assess emissions, consult with Indigenous peoples and the general public in what Carr describes as “setting up a process beyond the NEB’s mandate and timelines.”

Nagata welcomes this decision as well, but questions still remain.

“How do you put a timeline on meaningful consultations with First Nations?” Nagata asked.

Another unanswered question and an issue most Canadian politicians tend to dance around is how does an oil pipeline pass a climate test?

“A climate test on pipelines is only meaningful if it respects the commitment to 1.5ºC that Prime Minister Trudeau made in Paris, and that would mean taking pipelines and tar sands expansion off the table,” Cameron Fenton, 350.org’s tarsands organizer stated in a media release.

“There’s no such thing as a climate-friendly pipeline. The science is crystal clear: in order to prevent catastrophic climate change, fossil fuels, and especially tar sands, need to stay in the ground,” Fenton said.

Alberta-based energy think tank Pembina Institute estimates the annual greenhouse gas emissions from the Energy East pipeline (1.1 million barrels per day capacity) are the equivalent of putting an additional seven million cars on the road.

Twenty-seven climate experts in a 2014 open letter projected Trans Mountain “alone is expected to lead to 50 per cent more carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions each year than all of British Columbia currently produces.”

Wednesday’s announcement comes on the heels of a recent backlash by pro-pipeline politicians against Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre, who announced last week that 82 Montreal-area municipalities oppose the Energy East pipeline.

For the last month, First Nations, environmental organizations and politicians such as Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan have called on the federal government to suspend the current regulatory reviews of existing pipeline projects until after the promised overhaul of the National Energy Board.

Image Credit: Screenshot CBC News

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 next round of the National Energy Board’s (NEB) hearings for the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline are scheduled to begin January 19 in Vancouver, B.C.

Climate advocates and critics of the National Energy Board are disappointed the review process will continue on under rules established by the previous federal government, especially since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau campaigned on a promise to make the process more credible and evidence-based.

The Liberal party platform promised to immediately review the process, restoring “robust oversight and thorough environmental assessments” as well as restoring “lost protections” eliminated during the former government’s sweeping changes to environmental law. 

At a campaign stop in August 2015, Trudeau told Kai Nagata, energy and democracy director at the Dogwood Initiative, that the NEB overhaul would apply to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline.

“Yes. Yes,” Trudeau said. “It applies to existing projects, existing pipelines as well.”

“Okay,” Nagata said. “So if they approve Kinder Morgan in January, you’re saying…”

“No, they’re not going to approve it in January. Because we’re going to change the government,” Trudeau responded. “And that process needs to be redone.”

Trudeau on Kinder Morgan

Justin Trudeau says if he's Prime Minister, Kinder Morgan will have to go back to the drawing board, saying "the process needs to be redone." Find out where candidates in your riding stand: http://votebc.ca/

Posted by Dogwood Initiative on Friday, August 21, 2015

However in November, Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr announced ongoing pipeline reviews will continue on while the federal government considers new rules.

“There will be a transition as we amend the ways in which the National Energy Board goes about the process of evaluating these projects,” Minister Carr said in November, “and we will announce those changes as soon as we can, but the process continues.”

Nagata said Trudeau’s promise is not being upheld.

“Clearly something has happened between the dying days of the election and today to give the government pause with regard to its promise to revamp the Kinder Morgan process,” he said.

“What’s difficult to stomach is everyone, including the Liberals, agrees there is a problem with the process.”

Nagata said this week’s decision by the B.C. Supreme Court that the province failed to uphold its duty to consult First Nations regarding the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline only adds to the feeling of frustration.

“The circumstances are exactly the same for Trans Mountain,” he said. “In this context we have these hearings going on that everyone agrees is a sham, but the First Nations, municipalities, and intervenors are expected to continue on, basically doffing their cap to the panel as they present their final evidence.”

“It’s humiliating for the province, for First Nations, intervenors and the taxpayers who supported the scientific work done in this review,” he said.

Clayton Thomas Muller, climate campaigner with 350.org, said the Trans Mountain hearings should not go ahead.

“By letting these reviews proceed the Prime Minister is breaking the promise he made on the campaign trail to stop reviewing pipelines using Stephen Harper’s rules,” he said.

“This government can’t meet its commitments on climate or Indigenous rights and push forward with pipeline reviews that ignore climate change, community voices and the duty to consult with Indigenous peoples,” Thomas Muller, Stop it at the Source Campaigner with 350.org, said.

Thomas Muller spent the morning in the office of Minister Jim Carr as part of a People’s Injunction action organized by 350.org. Campaigners said they were performing a “people’s search and seizure” for new pipeline review rules.

“If they don’t have a new process here today, they should cancel these projects before the Kinder Morgan hearings start on Monday,” Thomas Muller said.

“Without considering climate change or listening to community voices, especially First Nations, these reviews are still little more than a rubber stamp for unnecessary, dangerous fossil fuel projects.”

The climate advocacy organization is planning actions across Canada as part of the People’s Injunction to ask for a cancellation or suspension of pipeline reviews until new rules are put in place. 

Peter McCartney, climate campaigner with the Wilderness Committee said the organization is “very disappointed” the review will continue on under the current regime.

“There was a promise made to restore credibility to these hearings,” he said. “If these hearings aren't good enough for future projects, they're not good enough now.”

The Wilderness Committee publicly withdrew as an intervenor from the Trans Mountain review in August, criticising the process as unfair and biased with a predetermined outcome. The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society as well as 33 other individuals also abandoned their position as intervenors in the process in August, following other high-profile withdrawals from for CEO of ICBC, Robyn Allan, and former CEO of BC Hydro, Marc Elisen.

“Canadians deserve an environmental review process they can trust, that takes into account climate impacts and properly consults with First Nations,” McCartney said.

“It looks like we made the right decision in pulling out of the hearings and taking our message straight to the Prime Minister.”

You can click here to read more about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and climate change.

Image: Twitter

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.

Residents of Vancouver Island’s Shawnigan Lake are currently in B.C.’s Supreme Court fighting a waste discharge permit that will allow five million tonnes of contaminated soil to be dumped in their watershed over the next 50 years.

The ongoing case marks the third legal challenge the community has brought against the B.C. Ministry of Environment for granting the hazardous waste disposal permit to company South Island Aggregates.

The feeling of betrayal in the community is palpable, where frustrations with B.C.’s permit granting process and seeming close connection with industry are running at an all time high.

Sonia Furstenau, Cowichan Valley Regional District elected official for Shawnigan Lake, said people in the community have voiced their opposition to the project since day one.

Shawnigan Lake residents fought to prevent the original permit from being granted in 2013 and, when it was granted, challenged it through the Environmental Appeal Board (EAB). The community is now in the B.C. Supreme Court where a judicial review of the EAB’s ruling, which was favourable to the project proponent, is currently underway.

The Cowichan Valley Regional District is also fighting a separate legal battle, arguing the region’s zoning rules don’t allow for the dumping of hazardous waste.

Furstenau said she hopes the judicial review will out the community on a new trajectory.

“So we have a judge looking at all that evidence which was weighed so heavily against this site going forward,” she said. “I hope the judge is going to give us the ruling this community deserves to have.”

She said a win like that could really “help us keep the momentum moving forward.”

“There’s no relenting until the permit is revoked and the soil that’s been dumped already is removed. That cannot sit in our watershed. We are not going to let it stay.”

“I’m an advocate for justice and I always have been,” Furstenau said, “but it’s always been global issues, or climate change, or hunger or poverty — things that are a little bit removed.”

“To have it be so personal is very different and yet I’m motivated by the same things: justice, fairness and what’s right, what’s wrong.”

Right to Healthy Environment Proactive, Provides Access to Justice

Alaya Boisvert, lead for the David Suzuki Foundation’s Blue Dot movement, said if communities like Shawnigan Lake had a more definite right to clean water, it could change the way they engage with government permitting processes.

“We believe all Canadians have the right to a healthy environment which means — in addition to having the right to breathe fresh air, eat safe food, enjoy a stable climate — they fundamentally have the right to clean water,” Boisvert said. “It’s of critical importance that we have laws to substantiate those rights.”

Boisvert said currently Canada has a disconnected patchwork of environmental laws and regulations, “which do not recognize, fulfill and protect Canadians’ right to a healthy environment.”

“That’s a problem at all levels of government,” she added.

The David Suzuki Foundation, along with legal partner Ecojustice, is currently campaigning for a legislative change that would embed the right to a healthy environment within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Boisvert said giving Canadians substantive environmental rights could change the way decisions are made about things like hazardous waste disposal.

“This would mean Canadians have access to adequate and safe waste management, which is an issue that is front and centre in the Shawnigan Lake situation.”

“It will also give Canadians procedural rights that include the right to know if there is pollution or contaminants being released in your environment.”

If that were the case, a fundamental right to a healthy environment would mean you would have the right to participate in environmental decision-making about those contaminants, Boisvert said.

“This is also relevant to the Shawnigan Lake situation where citizens have had long-standing concerns about the environmental impact assessment, about the quality and stability of … the infrastructure that is handling the waste disposal.”

A fundamental right to clean water might also give communities more legal standing to challenge decisions after the fact. “It’s also about access to justice,” Boisvert said.

“If there are cases where the environmental rights of citizens are being violated, it’s critically important that citizens are able to seek legal recourse for that, have their rights protected, fulfilled and respected.”

The Cowichan Valley Regional District is one of the more than 100 municipalities in Canada that have passed resolutions recognizing a citizen’s right to a healthy environment.

Legal Challenges Costly

Celine Trojand, community organizer with democracy-advocacy organization Dogwood Initiative, said the right to a healthy environment could compliment the battle for community self-determination that is currently being waged across the province in places like Shawnigan Lake, near the Site C Dam, or in the Walbran Valley’s old-growth forests.

“I think at the municipal, provincial, or federal level it would give communities something to point to that could back up their advocacy work,” Trojand said.

She added, however, that legal protections may not be enough without “boots on the ground” activism that ensures those rules are actually enforced.

“The policy is good if there is political will or a constituency organizing around seeing that law or policy enacted and enforced, because otherwise there are loopholes and it will be back to business as usual.”

Trojand said the way B.C. handles resource and development decisions is somewhat “backwards.”

“A company comes in and their sense of accountability is not to people who live in that community,” she said. “When they have a proposal to put forward they advance it, get the support of government and, if they’re able to, go through the hoops to get the support of the community.”

“If the process were that the community needed to be part of the proposal creation first, then we wouldn’t run into this cycle of communities feeling like their interests aren’t being represented at the government level — or anywhere really.”

Trojand said legal challenges — like those currently ongoing against the Site C Dam, Northern Gateway pipeline, the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, and waste disposal in Shawnigan Lake — are expensive and time consuming.

“It’s a long road to walk,” she said.

“However if a legal approach is backed up by a political approach in terms of applying pressure on decision makers and building a grassroots constituency that can organize and mobilize in key moments on an issue — in combination those things are really effective.”

Trojand added whether you’re fighting legal battles in the courts or working on developing stronger policies, like the right to a healthy environment, community participation “hasn’t been made very easy.”

“It’s not often clear to the average voter or citizen how to engage with either of those institutions.”

She added: ”That’s really what’s exciting, I think, about all of these very local community concerns really starting to take centre stage in B.C. as people are seeing that if they become activated on those issues and activated in their local communities they can see the change.”

“Local people are catalyzing around an issue, trying to trigger both legal and political processes, to combat the industry-driven status quo,” she said.

Image:  Shaw Creek near Shawnigan Lake, located below South Island Aggregates sites 21 and 23.* Photo provided by the Shawnigan Residents Association.

* Caption updated January 15, 2016 10:25am.

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.

Isn’t it ironic? A little too ironic?

On the very same day the UN climate summit kicked off in Paris, Vancouver’s port authority approved a cost-saving amendment allowing for the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks terminal to export massive amounts of thermal coal to Southeast Asia on ships rather than barges. The irony hasn’t been lost on environmental activists.

“It was just such a stark contradiction in the timing around this most recent approval where the port authority is improving a new thermal coal port on day one of global climate talks,” says Laura Benson, Dogwood Initiative’s Beyond Coal campaign director. “One foot’s going backwards into the 19th century and one foot’s trying to move ahead into a brighter future where we can fight climate change.”

Fraser Surrey Docks, owned by a Macquarie Group-managed investment company, currently exports lumber, steel and containers. Since 2012, the company has pushed for permission to construct a new $50-million coal-loading terminal to export up to eight million tonnes of thermal coal — which is burned to generate electricity, unlike metallurgical coal which is required to smelt steel — to Asia from mines in Montana and Wyoming’s Powder River Basin.

A company update from late 2012 anticipated shipping would start in 2013. It hasn’t exactly turned out that way. The Vancouver Port Authority is now facing lawsuits from Voters Taking Action on Climate Change (VTACC) and the Musqueam Indian Band over an alleged failure to adequately consult.

“The port is both the landlord and the regulator,” says Kevin Washbrook, the director of VTACC. “They have an interest in seeing these projects go ahead. So there’s no public assurance this process isn’t biased in favour of the industry. Rather than going through the show of attending the open houses, we’ve been saying from the start the port needs to sit down with the public and talk about these concerns and engage local governments from the start.”

Coal prices have cratered in recent years, stymieing Fraser Surrey Docks' efforts to find a customer to buy into the barging scheme. The company's amended proposal allows it to also load coal directly onto ocean-going vessels, which doesn’t resolve concerns about climate change, traffic in the Fraser River or ramifications for air quality. “We can’t build these coal ports and avoid runaway climate change: it’s contrary to what we need to do," Washbrook says.

In late 2013, Port Metro Vancouver hired Edelman — a public relations firm that previously represented other pro-coal organizations — to help boost its image. Unfortunately, as Chinese coal imports declined and a global coal glut emerged, such appeals to economic arguments largely flopped. Benson notes the thermal coal market in the Pacific Rim is oversupplied and that companies are scaling back exports despite giant penalties. Potential environmental impacts such as increased air pollution, noise and greenhouse gas emissions have only added to concerns. The hiring of the hellishly controversial SNC Lavalin by the docks to conduct environmental assessments and Port Metro Vancouver’s decision to ignore calls for a full health impact assessment kind of capped it all off.

With all that said, Alan Fryer — spokesperson for the Coal Alliance, a lobbyist organization that petitions for British Columbia coal businesses, including the Fraser Surrey Docks — maintains optimism the industry will rebound given global demands for coal. He argues the Fraser Surrey Docks are a “flashpoint” triggered by an upswing in anti-coal activism in the United States’ Pacific Northwest, and that the industry provides tens of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions in tax revenue.

“We’re a trading nation,” he says. “We are a port city. I don’t think we get to pick and choose, necessarily, the products that we export. It’s a tough time in the resource sector generally. I know a lot of people are hurting and have lost their jobs. I think anytime you have the opportunity to create even a few well-paid unionized jobs, that’s a good thing.”

Coal mining in the Powder River Basin.

In late November, Fryer sent congratulatory emails to 33 British Columbia-based MPs (including three cabinet ministers), providing background on the province’s coal industry and an invitation to get in touch if they wanted more information. The communications report in the federal lobbyist register initially appears startling given most lobbying efforts tend to include a half-dozen or so MPs at the most. Fryer notes the Coal Alliance “registered it out of an abundance of caution” even though it wasn’t sit-down House of Cards-esque lobbying. Kudos on that front. But Benson suggests the Coal Alliance has a “heavy influence” on decisions made by the port authority, so perhaps the communication wasn’t so innocuous (in September, Freyer also lobbied a dozen MPs on behalf of the Coal Alliance).

It’s as a result of such pressures that Washbrook calls for a fundamental reformation of how port authorities are governed. He suggests local communities — such as Surrey and New Westminster, which have both joined the lawsuit against the port authority as interveners — need to have a more significant voice in the consultation process and that ports should take into consideration a wider range of concerns, including climate impacts of the commodities they export. In mid-2013, University of British Columbia political science professor Kathryn Harrison noted that seven of the 11 members on the Port Metro Vancouver’s board of directors were appointed by the federal government based on suggestions from “Port User Group,” which includes coal organizations.

Fraser Surrey Docks still has to jump through a number of “permitting hoops,” in the words of Washbrook, most notably the acquisition of Metro Vancouver’s air quality permit. He suggests the project shouldn’t go ahead with construction until it receives such a permit given the impacts it could have on design, and that coal is “already dead and everyone knows it.”

Fryer acknowledges the world will eventually have to transition away from thermal coal to renewable forms of energy “but the reality is we’re not there yet and fossil fuels, including coal, are going to be a very important part of the energy mix for sometime.” The recent amendment won’t affect the court cases as it’s the original permit that’s being challenged.

While Benson suggests the port authority has clearly signalled it’s not going to address the concerns voiced by groups like Dogwood and VTACC, she expresses optimism: “We have more avenues now given the new federal government to have the voices of citizens heard. In terms of a citizens’ movement, we’re stronger than ever. So I’m very optimistic we’ll eventually find a way to either get the answers we deserve or just block this project from ever moving forward.”

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

A report released today by Samara Canada — a charity dedicated to reconnecting citizens to politics — calls into question the idea that Canadian youth are apathetic and stresses the importance of contact from political leaders to increase voter turnout.

The report, Message Not Delivered, finds that across 18 forms of civic and political participation beyond voting — including signing petitions, talking about politics, volunteering or attending a protest — Canadians under 30 participate at a rate 11 percentage points higher than those 30 and above.

Yet in the 2011 federal election, only 41 per cent of people under 30 voted — compared to 63 per cent of people over the age of 30.

The report compares political participation and contact rates between citizens and Canadian political leaders across three age groups and finds that Canada’s political leaders are not reaching out to all Canadians equally. In a 12-month period leading into an election year, only 55 per cent of Canadians ages 18 to 29 reported being contacted, compared to 75 per cent of Canadians ages 56 and older.

“This news is troubling,” says Jane Hilderman, Samara’s executive director. “Contact from political leaders is powerful: it encourages people to vote — increasing turnout — and strengthens their awareness of politics.”

Indeed, Elections Canada’s 2011 National Youth Survey found that turnout for youth contacted by political leaders was 15 percentage points higher.

In Samara’s study, among young Canadians who reported contact via all five methods (e-mail, phone, mail, social network and in person), 61 per cent said they are affected by the decisions made by elected officials “every day.” Among young Canadians who reported no contact only 22 per cent agreed with the statement.

“The upshot is that younger Canadians aren’t more politically apathetic or tuned out than their older counterparts; they’re more ignored by parties, candidates and leaders than older Canadians, which may partially explain declining voter turnout amongst youth,” the report finds.

Part of the issue is that youth are generally harder to reach because they move more frequently than other age groups and rarely have a landline telephone or listed address, but the problem goes beyond that to the types of issues political candidates are talking about.

“When it comes to political engagement, people talk about the vicious cycle, where candidates don't prioritize younger Canadians, so younger Canadians vote less, so candidates make younger Canadians even less of a priority, and on it goes,” says Eric Swanson, executive director of Generation Squeeze — a group that lobbies for policy changes that would benefit younger Canadians.

To break that cycle, Swanson says candidates need to not just contact young people, but also demonstrate a real understanding of their lived experience “whether it be precarious work, high housing costs, student debt, the costs of starting a family, anxiety about climate change, etcetera.”  

The Samara report also points a finger at political messages that fail to resonate with young people. 

“This failure could be a result of the way the message is framed or the type of language that’s used," the report finds. "It could also be that the issue itself isn’t appealing to youth and doesn’t stand out amidst all the other media competing for their attention."

In the 2015 federal election campaign, Swanson gives credit to all parties for raising issues such as child care and affordable housing, but says many of those promises lack sufficient funding commitments to make the day-to-day difference younger Canadians are looking for.

With political parties often missing the boat on connecting with younger Canadians, other groups are stepping up to fill the void. Dogwood Initiative, for instance, is focused on connecting politics to issues British Columbians care about, such as oil pipeline and tanker proposals.

The non-partisan citizen’s group has about 260,000 supporters in B.C. and its teams of volunteers are having face-to-face conversations with potential voters in 20 federal ridings.

“The first questions we ask are about values,” says Celine Trojand, Dogwood’s field director.

After making contact, Dogwood follows up with updates and makes ‘get out the vote’ calls before election day to ensure citizens have a plan to get to the polls.

It's a strategy that works. After the last municipal elections in B.C., Dogwood analyzed the different levels of contact people received from the group. In Vancouver, for instance, the general voter turnout was 39 per cent. The turnout of Dogwood supporters who had received an e-mail communication about voting was 67 per cent. When people also received a phone call, voter turnout increased to 81 per cent.

“So we’re seeing a 14 per cent increase on voter turnout based on real, live contact with people,” Trojand says.

As for young people, Trojand says the Samara findings aren't surprising.

“Our feeling is that it’s not that the younger demographic isn’t engaged,” Trojand says. “It’s that the local parties aren’t engaging about issues that they care about. Third parties like Dogwood and others have an advantage because they’re actually connecting about values first, on things young people care about like climate change.”

Photo: Dogwood Initiative

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 post originally appeared on the Dogwood Initiative blog.

I should confess: I talk to lamp fixtures.

I wink at ceiling vents, sing to the dashboard in my car, apologize to the people eavesdropping on my phone calls for how boring my conversations are.

I can’t pinpoint when this running joke began, but it was sometime after I left television journalism and began to publicly criticize the government. Now that I work at Dogwood Initiative — where we’ve actually been the target of homeland surveillance — the joke is less funny.

Last week Dogwood organizers testified at a secret hearing of the Security Intelligence Review Committee — the “watchdog” tasked with keeping CSIS on a leash. We allege not only that Canada’s spy service broke the law by gathering information on peaceful civilians inside Canada, but that government spying has put a chill on democratic participation.

Do you know that feeling, that you’re being watched? It’s like when you park your vehicle in a bad spot and have to walk there after dark. Or you come home after a trip and the door is unlocked. Or you peer into the webcam on your phone or computer and wonder, is anyone there?

This spring I couldn’t shake that creepy sensation. I told myself I was being silly, that I had nothing to hide, that all my interesting consumer data is swept up by marketers already. But the feeling wouldn’t go away, so I sent CSIS a request under the Privacy Act to see if they had a file on me.

A few weeks later a brown envelope arrived from Ottawa with my address hand-written on the front. Inside was a single, watermarked page with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service logo at the top.

“Dear Mr. Nagata,” it began. “The personal information bank listed below was searched on your behalf with the following results:

(CSIS PPU 045) – Canadian Security Intelligence Service Investigational Records — The Governor-in-Council has designated this information bank an exempt bank pursuant to section 18 of the Privacy Act. If the type of information described in the bank did exist, it would qualify for exemption under section 21 (as it relates to the efforts of Canada towards detecting, preventing, or suppressing subversive or hostile activities), or 22(1)(a) and/or (b) of the Act.”

I looked up the exemptions in the Privacy Act. It says agencies can refuse to release information about “activities suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada,” including details “that would reveal the identity of a confidential source of information.”

In other words, I may be under investigation by CSIS. If I am, they can’t tell me — because it might blow the identity of a source. Other friends and organizers have received the same letter. 

Let’s rewind to January 2013 when along with allied groups, Dogwood helped organize an unprecedented number of people to participate in a public review of the Enbridge Northern Gateway project. Most governments would view that as a good thing. Our government sent federal agents after us.

Thanks to U.S. intelligence whistleblower Edward Snowden, security researchers at Queen’s University and journalists at the Guardian, Vancouver Observer and other outlets, the picture has slowly become clear: CSIS and other agencies in Canada see peaceful opposition to private oil company projects as a threat to national security.

We found out long after the fact that a Dogwood-organized meeting in a church basement in Kelowna came under federal surveillance. Later, it appears CSIS agents shared intelligence they had gathered with oil patch executives at a secret briefing sponsored by Enbridge.

Let me try to explain why this makes me so angry.

My dad’s parents were born in Vancouver and grew up speaking English. But because their folks had emigrated from Japan, in 1942 the whole family was reclassified as a threat to Canada. Everything they couldn’t fit in a suitcase — land, houses, shops, boats, farm tools — was seized and auctioned off. More than 25,000 men, women and children were rounded up and deported, put in prison camps or on remote work sites for the next four years.

It emerged after the war that the RCMP had never actually considered Japanese-Canadians a threat. It was the politicians who wanted a scapegoat. Our community has had a wary relationship with the Canadian government ever since. It’s hard to fully identify with a country that has shown you just how fragile your rights are as a citizen.

Still, I tried. After university I volunteered for the infantry reserve. I wanted to be proud of my Canadian identity, to wear the flag on my shoulder, to defend our values at home and overseas. Ironically, they tried to recruit me to do intelligence work in Afghanistan.

Instead I got a job doing radio journalism, ending my army career before it really began. I was disappointed to leave my regiment, but glad to be defending Canada and the public interest in a different way.

What I’m saying is, I work with Dogwood Initiative because I’m a patriot.

I believe in a country where power comes from the people. Where politicians are held accountable to their constituents. Where decisions are made together, not forced down our throats. And yes, where you need consent from First Nations and British Columbians if you want to build a pipeline to an oil tanker port on our coast.

I believe citizenship means thinking for yourself, not just blindly repeating what some politician wants you to say. I believe there’s a difference between our national interest and the interests of state-owned oil companies in China, or pipeline executives sitting in Houston. And I believe that Canada needs to plan for the threats to our economy and security created by climate change — not make them worse.

If you agree with any of that, then I guess we’re both enemies of the state.

The language is ridiculous, but don’t forget — it always starts with language. At a recent event in Vancouver South a Mandarin-speaking woman wanted to sign our Let BC Vote pledge, but explained that she was about to write her citizenship exam. She didn’t want to anger the government.

I laughed it off as paranoia. Sure, there are countries around the world where politically inconvenient people disappear. Secret agents torment families. Peoples’ careers and reputations are ruined. But we tell ourselves that’s not supposed to happen in Canada.

Well, here’s the ugly truth: she’s not wrong to harbour those fears. This country was built on cultural genocide. We invaded territory, stole children, wiped out languages — all of this was official government policy. Canada really did impose a racist head tax on immigrants. And in the First and Second World Wars thousands of citizens were stripped of their rights and property and interned for years in prison camps. These are difficult events to come to terms with, but they’re part of our history.

The only thing protecting us from such abuses today are limits on state power. These checks and balances are not given to us — they had to be fought for. Our job is to guard them vigilantly from the political and corporate interests that would weaken our democratic institutions to their own advantage.

This is one of those moments.

It’s becoming clear that oversight of spy agencies in Canada is dangerously weak. Dogwood only found out about the Kelowna incident long afterwards, by fluke. We have no way of knowing what other events or communications CSIS or other agencies have monitored. But we do know one thing: the situation is about to get worse.

Bill C-51, the government’s so-called antiterrorism law, beefs up the powers of Canada’s clandestine agencies to violate our constitutional rights — with no improvement in transparency or accountability. The violations we allege happened long before C-51 was on the books. Our spy agencies are already breaking the law, because there are no real consequences.

Last week’s hearing were far from perfect. The contents are secret, closed to media and the public. The adjudicator hearing our case is a former director of the TransCanada pipeline company. But it’s a good thing we have this opportunity, however fleeting, to hold Canada’s spies to some degree of accountability. It’s also a reminder of what’s at stake in the current election.

We can go in one of two directions as a country. We can vote to give even greater powers to spy agencies to violate our rights and freedoms. Or we can vote for rational civilian oversight: measures that balance the need to keep our population safe with the need to know how spy agencies are spending public money — and whether they’re obeying Canadian law.

The choice is yours. I invite you to sign the BC Civil Liberties Association “don’t spy on me” petition at SecretSpyHearings.ca. Ask your local candidates where they stand on government surveillance. Make sure they understand it's an election issue.

Above all, please get out and vote. It’s still the most dangerous act of defiance you can possibly undertake.

Image Credit: 707d3k 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.

This is a guest post by Kai Nagata, energy and democracy director at the Dogwood Initiative. 

Climate change shouldn’t be a left-wing versus right-wing political issue. I might take some flak for saying this, but “progressives” who claim only they have the correct ideas to fix the world are guilty of terrible hubris. And for "conservatives" to align themselves uncritically with global oil corporations betrays either intellectual laziness or cowardice.

All of us have a moral obligation to leave things better off for our kids. We might have different priorities or policy ideas, but at the end of the day we have to share this country — and parliament. And whether you believe in climate change or not, its social and economic impacts will eventually affect all of our lives.

The choice we face is whether to hunker down into polarized political camps, or reach out and find ways to work together.

This month I attended the Manning Networking Conference in Ottawa for the third year in a row. It’s the country’s preeminent annual gathering of conservative activists, academics, campaign experts and candidates — and I look forward to it every spring.

Rex Murphy addressed the crowd at the Manning Networking Conference. Photo: Corporate Knights

People ask me “but you oppose oil tanker projects. What are you doing at a conservative conference?"

Why do conservatives in British Columbia oppose oil tankers? For one thing, they believe the integrity of our democracy is more important than the profits of Chinese state-owned oil companies — or a bunch of ex-Enron executives in Houston. The same conservatives believe the rights of local people should trump the reelection plans of politicians in Ottawa. And many believe that if we can’t find a way to use our oil safely and fairly, we should leave it in the ground for another day.

There’s nothing conservative about blanketing the sea floor in bitumen because we couldn’t figure out how else to balance a budget. And there’s nothing conservative about building bigger and bigger fossil fuel infrastructure when common sense tells us we need to head in a new direction.

Don’t take my word for it. Look up Bob Inglis, a former six-term Republican congressman from the “reddest corner of the reddest state in America:" South Carolina. Lauded by pro-life groups and the National Rifle Association, Inglis is very conservative. But in 2010 the Tea Party (backed by oil billionaires Charles and David Koch) helped a rookie Republican challenger defeat congressman Inglis in a primary.

Why? According to Inglis, it’s because he started raising the alarm about climate change.

Inglis spoke on a panel at the Manning conference called “Market-based Environmental Conservation.” His argument, delivered in a folksy drawl, was this: as mega-storms, drought and sea level rise kick in, fearful citizens will demand a response. Conservatives can either get ahead of the emissions curve now, or watch their nightmare come to life: big government running everyone’s lives.

Tax polluters now, Inglis says, and you create incentives for companies to emit less carbon. Keep pretending climate change is fiction, and the only option left when things get really bad will be top-down management by the state – the socialist response.

In reality we need a combination of both. We need government policy makers and private-sector innovators pulling in the same direction. Right now we have political gridlock — and emissions keep rising. Getting past that is going to require a bit of Naomi Klein, a bit of Bob Inglis.

It’s a myth that conservatives don’t care about the environment. Our province is full of good-hearted gun owners in big pickup trucks who spend a lot more time outdoors than the typical Gastown activist. These hunters and anglers, farmers and ranchers know that humans have a duty to steward the land. They agree with Preston Manning that “conservatism and conservation come from the same root.”

One of Manning’s friends, former Conservative cabinet minister Monte Solberg, explained this worldview to conference-goers in terms I found quite moving:

“That’s the milieu I grew up in: Conservatism and conservation. Conservatism was about human flourishing, families and faith, markets and individual freedom,” said Solberg, who grew up in rural Saskatchewan and Alberta.

“But it was also about stewardship of the land, respect for nature, and an acknowledgement that our surroundings and the kind of communities we grow up in matters, because our communities shape us. That’s a conservatism that is integrated and whole, and it’s still the conservatism I believe in.”

Glacier Lake in Banff National Park. Photo: National Parks Conservation Association

Solberg advocates conservation projects as a bridge between political solitudes. You know, like sloshing around in waders planting marsh grass or counting birds. Whether you think climate change is “hokum,” as Solberg puts it — or the biggest problem ever to face humanity — we need to roll up our sleeves and get used to working together.

“Restoring wetlands, forests and prairie does much more than just create habitat for animals, or clean the air, land and water, or mitigate flooding, or provide water for livestock, or give us new places to camp, hunt and fish,” says Solberg. “Wetlands, prairie and trees naturally sequester huge amounts of carbon dioxide.”

Is that enough to fix the whole world? Perhaps not. But conservation is something people can get behind no matter where they sit on the political spectrum. And going for a hike sure beats shouting at each other from different ideological silos. I think Solberg is offering a worthwhile idea that could make it easier to tackle more difficult tasks later on, like drafting collaborative legislation.

So, progressive comrades, I’m tired of hearing that “Stephen Harper is destroying Canada.” It may feel satisfying to say around the dinner table or brave to post on Facebook, but it just makes Conservative organizers chuckle. If your goal is to elect somebody else, you’re going to have to convince people who voted for a Conservative MP in 2011 that their representative has done a poor job on their behalf and no longer deserves their support. That conversation has to start with mutual trust and respect.

Conservative friends, if you think letting global energy companies write their own rules is responsible governance — well, you’re just being taken advantage of. Alberta tried that and look where they ended up: public finances a mess, nothing in the Heritage Trust Fund, treaties broken, water polluted and reputational damage worldwide (ironically now restricting market access in the U.S. and Europe).

If we’re going to ride out the next few decades without major disruption to our lives due to climate change, burnable fuels will need to be conserved. Each province will need a plan for how to ration out that fossil energy long enough to power the transition to cleaner sources of power. And we’ll need a strategy to integrate those policies at the national and continental level.

Waiting around for the perfect solution is not an option. We have to find whatever common ground will be supported by a democratic majority of citizens at the local level and start from there. Don’t worry, saying the words "climate change" doesn’t make you a pinko: look at Bob Inglis. And taking inspiration from Monte Solberg doesn’t make you a progressive traitor.

At the end of the day, energy use is not a left-right issue. You can still read Ayn Rand by the light of a photovoltaic cell — just as people enjoyed Das Kapital next to their coal-oil lamps.

Image Credit: Typhoon Halong via NASA

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.

Kinder Morgan has launched an advertising campaign pushing the company’s proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion that just so happens to coincide with B.C.’s municipal elections — but Elections BC says the company doesn’t need to register as a third-party advertiser.

That’s a bit of a puzzler given that Elections BC rules clearly state that anyone who runs ads on an election issue must register as a third-party advertiser and disclose costs within 90 days of the Nov. 15 election.

Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion, which would triple the amount of oilsands bitumen flowing to the B.C. coast, is certainly an election issue, with Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan and Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson staking out positions against the project.

An online survey for the Burnaby NOW found the pipeline expansion is the No. 1 concern for Burnaby voters during the civic election.

With that in mind, Burnaby-Douglas New Democrat MP Kennedy Stewart asked Elections BC to look into Kinder Morgan’s advertising blitz. The Canadian Press reported that he received a response from Jodi Cook, Elections BC manager of provincial electoral finance, which said that Kinder Morgan’s advertising doesn’t meet the definition of election advertising.

Let’s look at the Elections BC definition of election advertising: “Election advertising is any transmission of a communication to the public during an election proceedings period that directly or indirectly promotes or opposes the election of a candidate or an elector organization. Election advertising includes a communication that takes a position on an issue with which a candidate or an elector organization is associated.” (Emphasis added)

Given that definition, the Dogwood Initiative, a non-profit group that opposes Trans Mountain, felt it needed to register as a third-party advertiser even though the group isn’t endorsing candidates.

“We talked to Elections BC over the summer and determined that even if we make no formal endorsements … the very fact that we are surveying candidates and differentiating candidates on an issue makes this into election advertising,” said Kai Nagata, Dogwood’s energy and democracy director. “We’re tracking the time and money that goes into communications even with our own supporters.”

Elections BC communications manager Don Main told DeSmog Canada that "the [Kinder Morgan] advertising did not appear to implicate, positively or negatively, a candidate or elector organization. The advertising brought to our attention did not tie explicitly or implicitly to the election, and did not serve the primary purpose of supporting or opposing a particular elector organization or candidate."

Nagata notes that Kinder Morgan launched its advertising campaign —which includes leaflets, bus shelter ads, television and online advertisements, robocalls and telephone townhalls — right after the nomination period for the municipal elections closed.

One of Kinder Morgan's television advertisements, which is running during B.C.'s municipal election campaigns.

According to the Elections BC third-party sponsor guide, indications that advertising may qualify as “third party advertising” include advertising specifically planned to coincide with the election proceedings period and a substantial increase in the normal volume of advertising.

“I don’t think you get very far in being a public relations or advertising executive without being able to read a calendar,” Nagata said.

“The impression that is created, especially in the municipalities where this has been an election issue … is that of a targeted ad campaign aiming to sway voters on the merits of a particular project in the middle of a municipal election where candidates have staked their positions on this issue.”

Kinder Morgan has said that the regulatory process is not currently under municipal jurisdiction and therefore can’t be a municipal election issue.

“What that ignores of course is that such a project would have immediate and tangible impacts at a local level,” Nagata said, noting that the Burnaby Fire Department is already having to plan for an oil fire.

After the Elections BC ruling, Stewart submitted additional evidence to Elections BC, alleging Kinder Morgan was focusing advertising efforts against Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan, who strongly opposes the pipeline.

Stewart stated in the letter to Nola Western, the deputy chief electoral officer, that Kinder Morgan held a telephone town hall meeting in Burnaby in which 5,000 residents participated.

In a recording of the meeting posted on the project website, Stewart said Kinder Morgan president Ian Anderson describes a plan to offset Mayor Corrigan's "very public media driven campaign against the pipeline."

“Corrigan is disparaged by Anderson, who states opponents are using 'fear and emotion' to sway residents, and that information about the projects is being mischaracterized by the mayor," he said in the letter.

Elections BC responded by saying the town hall meeting has since been removed from the website.

Nagata said Dogwood Initiative could have avoided registering as a third-party advertiser and waited for a complaint to Elections BC to force a ruling on the matter, but “it didn’t even seem like it was an option not to register given the definition as we read it. This [Kinder Morgan] ruling surprised us."

So while voters will someday know how much non-profits like Dogwood Initiative spent during the election, as it stands it will forever remain a mystery how much oil giants like Kinder Morgan have pumped into advertising during this year's municipal campaign. What isn't a mystery is that oil companies certainly have a lot more to spend than organizations working in the public interest.

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.

Tensions are rising between the City of Burnaby and Kinder Morgan after company employees arrived in the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area Tuesday with chainsaws to remove trees and brush in order to assess a proposed route for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

The City of Burnaby issued a stop work order for the conservation area, saying Kinder Morgan does not have the right to do damage to property protected by city bylaws.

“I think it’s unfortunate that it has come to this,” city Mayor Derek Corrigan said in a press release, “but we can’t let Kinder Morgan cut down trees and do irreparable damage in a conservation area protected by our City’s bylaws.”

Corrigan added those bylaws are in place to protect the “rights and values” of local residents. “It’s astonishing that, as a private corporation, Kinder Morgan thinks they have the right to override our citizens’ wishes and the laws that have been put in place to reflect the value our citizens place on these sensitive, irreplaceable ecosystems.”

Lizette Parsons Bell, lead of stakeholder engagement and communications for Trans Mountain, said Kinder Morgan is conducting fieldwork and studies “to determine the feasibility of routing a two kilometre section of proposed pipeline between our Burnaby tank terminal and our Westridge marine terminal through the Burnaby Mountain.”

“What we’ve been doing is last week we started with clearing some brush to do some geophysical work and this week we started some geotechnical work,” she said.

Parsons Bell said the company hopes to route the pipeline through Burnaby Mountain using “trenchless construction,” a technique that requires drilling samples of the mountainside.

“This investigation informs our larger work of understanding the subsurface of Burnaby Mountain,” she said.

Burnaby is willing to grant Kinder Morgan access to the conservation land for “non-invasive work” according to mayor Corrigan, “but absolutely not to do what they arrived to do [Tuesday] – to cut down trees to create helicopter landing pads and sites for drilling bore holes on this protected land,” he said.

Parsons Bell said a helipad was being constructed for the delivery of equipment, but not for the landing of helicopters. “What I can categorically say to you is at no time will a helicopter land in the conservation area,” she said.

It appears that what is at issue between Kinder Morgan and Burnaby is a competing interpretation of the National Energy Board Act’s Section 73.

Section 73 states “a company may…enter into and on any Crown land without previous licence therefor, or into or on the land of any person, lying in the intended route of its pipeline, and make surveys, examinations or other necessary arrangements on the land for fixing the site of the pipeline, and set out and ascertain such parts of the land as are necessary and proper for the pipeline.”

 

The section also allows for a company to “take and hold of and from any person any land or property necessary for the construction, maintenance and operation of its pipeline.”

According to Mayor Corrigan, Kinder Morgan is using Section 73 to justify work that may damage the local region against city bylaws.

“As we’ve said before, there is nothing in Section 73…which Kinder Morgan is aggressively asserting gives them the right to do this damage – that does, in fact, allow them to do it.”

“The work that we’re looking to do now on this two kilometre section of the proposed pipeline between the proposed terminal and the Westridge terminal on August 19, the National Energy Board confirmed that Trans Mountain – that we – had Section 73 rights to be able to do that,” Parsons Bell said.

Kai Nagata, energy and democracy director with the Dogwood Initiative said, as a municipality, Burnaby is in a difficult situation.

“The first problem, the first sticking point, for Burnaby is that Section 73 allows a company onto private land or municipal land before a project is approved,” he said.

“So building a helipad or cutting trees down – all of that can happen before a project is approved.”

Nagata criticized the National Energy Board for failing to provide a legitimate forum to assess the desirability of a proposed pipeline in the first place, pitting local communities and their elected officials against federal regulators who appear to be pushing through projects like Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain.

“There is no credible democratic forum in which to contest these projects,” Nagata said. “But in the meantime Burnaby is flexing its limited jurisdiction any way it can in order to register its opposition to this project at the level of governance.”

“It begs the question of where the province is in all of this,” Nagata said. “If the city of Burnaby can hold up a project by seven months and they can issue stop work orders and if they can be a stick in the spokes of Kinder Morgan as they have been, what could the province be doing to represent its constituents and uphold the public interest with the resources and jurisdiction available to them?”

“I think what we’re seeing is provincial leaders basically wash their hands of this whole fight and leave it up to First Nations and municipalities and individual citizens rather than asserting their responsibilities.”

Nagata said it’s unclear exactly where federal jurisdiction ends and where First Nations or local jurisdiction begins.

“We applaud Burnaby for pushing the envelope and finding out what the limits of their jurisdiction are and setting and example for other municipalities and local governments in opposing this project,” he said.

Greg McDade, legal counsel for the city said Kinder Morgan has overstepped what is allowable under local laws.

“Kinder Morgan has not only damaged the Conservation Area in contravention of the law, they have also attempted to interfere with traffic on public roads and to obstruct park staff in their duties,“ he said.

“The actions of the company are unprecedented, and they appear to believe they can act as if the rule of law doesn’t apply to them.”

He added the city will seek a court injunction to uphold its laws and protect its parkland. The city also plans to ensure “ongoing protection” of the conservation area.

Burnaby officially opposes the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion which will triple the amount of oil stored on Burnaby Mountain and increase the movement of oil through residential areas. The expansion would also increase the number of tankers traversing the Burrard Inlet to 400 supertankers a year.

Image Credit: Playground of the Gods on Burnaby Mountain. Kyle Pearce 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.