A bill to restrict the movement of oil off the north coast of British Columbia has been formally tabled by the federal government in the House of Commons, according to a statement released by Transport Canada Friday.

The proposed legislation, which would restrict tankers carrying more than 12,500 metric tons of crude oil from entering or exiting north coast ports, must now make its way through Parliament.

“Today is a positive day for us,” Gavin Smith, staff counsel at West Coast Environmental Law, said.

“We’re very happy to see the federal government follow through on its promise to introduce a tanker ban.”

Smith said the legislation will prevent megaprojects like the Northern Gateway pipeline from being built in northern B.C. but added he has yet to review the text of the bill in detail.

“It appears to be introduced along similar lines to what the government signaled it was going to do in late 2016.” West Coast Environmental Law released a detailed analysis on the proposed tanker ban legislation in early 2017.

Here are five things you need to know about the newly tabled oil tanker ban from that analysis.

1. Tanker Ban Won’t Ban Supertankers of Refined Oil from the Coast

While the proposed legislation does prevent supertankers of crude oil and similar hydrocarbon products from moving in and out of northern ports in large quantities, it does not prevent refined oil products from doing the same.

This leaves the door open for future major oil refinery projects on B.C.’s north coast.

There are currently two proposed oil refinery projects for Kitimat, B.C. Both Kitimat Clean, which would refine 400,000 barrels of oil per day and the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project, which would refine 200,000 barrels of oil per day, are at various stages of review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

2. Tankers Carrying 12,500 Tons or Less of Oil Excluded From Ban

Once passed, the bill will only prevent vessels carrying more than 12,500 tons of crude oil from stopping at coastal ports. This allows northern communities reliant on oil for heating and other purposes to continue to receive supply shipments.

Joyce Henry, Director General of Marine Policy with Transport Canada said “it was never the Government’s intent to prohibit resupply. Shipments below 12,500 metric tons will continue to be allowed.”

In previous iterations the tanker ban would have prevented the shipment of more than 2,000 tons of crude oil but this bar was eventually raised to the current 12,500 ton threshold.

Gavin Smith said in a previous interview that the 12,500 threshold is slightly higher than the highest recorded shipments in the region, “so they’ve tried to cap it at the highest level of shipments that have been occurring there.”

3. Tanker Ban Would Not Prevent Another Nathan E. Stewart From Happening

The tanker ban was first announced by the federal government after Transport Minister Marc Garneau traveled to Heiltsuk territory to witness a diesel spill from the Nathan E. Stewart, a sunken fuel barge.

Despite this fact, the tanker ban would not prevent another similar spill from happening. The ban will not affect current fuel barge traffic.

Jess Housty, tribal councilor with the Heiltsuk First Nation previously said that the tanker ban “changes nothing.”

“I would challenge the federal government to give me a list of vessels that are actually impacted by this legislation,” she said. “I can’t think of one.”

The Nathan E. Stewart and other U.S.-bound fuel barges can pass through B.C.’s internal waters even though a Voluntary Tanker Exclusion Zone exists to prevent the transport of international oil from approaching B.C.’s coast line. The tanker ban does not change that.

“This tanker ban, not only does it not help us minimize the current risks we face, it gives permission for massive new risks that we don’t fully understand and I don’t think the general public would be comfortable with,” Housty said.

4. South Coast of B.C. Near Vancouver and Victoria Not Protected

The tanker ban does not impact tanker traffic on B.C.’s south coast where the terminus of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline is located. The ban extends from the northern B.C./U.S. border and stops near the tip of Vancouver Island.

Recently the federal government approved a massive expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline, a change that will lead to a seven-fold increase in tanker traffic in the Burrard Inlet.

5. Details of Banned Fuels Subject to Change

The tanker ban will prevent the movement of large amounts of crude oil from traversing coastal waters in B.C.’s north.

But the ban will also cover other heavy hydrocarbons known as persistent oil products in a ‘schedule’ appending the legislation.

According to Smith, the federal government will determine what types of products are listed in that schedule.

“That approach gives the federal government some flexibility to decide what it does and does not want to include in the moratorium,” Smith said.

The federal government has already, for example, said that jet fuel, propane and liquefied natural gas (LNG) will be permanently excluded from the ban.

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 election of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named south of the border is leaving many Canadians with a case of the climate doldrums as 2016 winds to a close — but here’s the thing: 2016 was actually the most promising year Canada has had on climate action in more than a decade.

To be sure, us Canucks have had some not-awesome news on the climate and energy front lately, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s approval of the enormously polluting Pacific Northwest LNG terminal near Prince Rupert, B.C., Enbridge’s Line 3 from Alberta to Wisconsin and the hotly contested Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain oil pipeline to Vancouver.

Many had higher hopes of climate leadership from Trudeau and they’re not wrong to be disappointed. However, as this year comes to a close, it’s also worth looking back on some of the significant steps forward that were made in 2016 — victories that in many cases were unimaginable even two years ago.

1. Dawning of New Age in Alberta

Where better to start than Alberta? In 2016, that province, home to the oilsands and heaps of coal-fired power, legislated a price on carbon and passed a law that requires at least 30 per cent renewable electricity by 2030.

Getting off coal is a clear win in Alberta, where air quality is consistently worse than Toronto due to emissions from coal-fired power plants. Those emissions annually result in an estimated 107 premature deaths, 80 hospital visits and almost 5,000 asthma-related sick days in Alberta, costing the province around $300 million a year.

Better yet, Alberta has loosened the regulations around citizens being able to generate their own electricity — a move that ought to speak to the free-wheeling spirit of Albertans.

2. Ratified Paris Agreement

With negative or even downright scary climate news dominating the headlines it’s easy to forget that a historic climate treaty was just ratified by nearly every country on the planet.

The Paris Agreement, a global pact to keep temperature increases as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible, has been ratified by more than 114 nations in 2016 representing more than 80 per cent of global emissions.

Now major polluting countries like China (responsible for a whopping 20 per cent of global emissions), Brazil, India and the U.S. are having some of the most productive and concrete conversations about climate action ever in the history of the planet.

And while president-elect you-know-who previously promised to pull out of the Paris Agreement there are early signs he may back down from that position. But even if he doesn’t, and the U.S. goes hog wild with its emissions, there are a lot of reasons why that doesn’t mean game over for the planet.

3. Arctic Drilling Ban

Perhaps one of the most unexpected announcements coming out of the last days of the Obama administration, the recent ban on Arctic and Atlantic drilling is huge, celebration-worthy news.

The ban in U.S. owned waters is permanent, meaning these areas will be indefinitely protected from future oil and gas development. Canada also banned offshore Arctic activity, subject to periodic reviews.

Climate change is being experience more severely in the Arctic, where food and life systems rely heavily on ice. So protecting sensitive polar regions from both climate change and further fossil fuel extraction is critically important.

4. Tanker Ban and End of Northern Gateway Pipeline

At long last, a crude oil tanker ban will be implemented on the north coast of B.C., according to an announcement by Trudeau in late November.

“The Great Bear Rainforest is no place for a pipeline and the Douglas Channel is no place for oil tanker traffic,” Trudeau said in making the announcement.

At the same time, Trudeau officially rejected Enbridge’s Northern Gateway proposal that would have brought more than 200 oil tankers a year into B.C.’s Great Bear Rainforest.

The announcement marks a monumental victory in a fight that’s gone on for more than a decade.

5. Canada's National Climate Plan

Despite much posturing from Canada’s premiers, a national framework on fighting climate change was reached. It’s not perfect, but it does take us a long way toward meeting our 2030 climate target. From stronger building codes to electric vehicles to a price on carbon, there’s a lot to be hopeful about in the document.

For the first time ever, Canada’s premiers and prime minister are committed to working together to reducing our carbon emissions — seems worth raising a toast to, doesn’t it?

Bonus Good News: Federal Review of Environmental Assessment

Sure the federal government has broken some of its promises this year, but one of the promises it has kept is to review the way we assess major energy projects. The federal government has initated reviews of the environmental assessment process, the Fisheries Act and the National Energy  Board. All of these reviews hold the potential to create positive long-term change in terms of how Canada considers energy projects — and could help get us out of the myopic gridlock we often find ourselves in. Huzzah!

Image: Rally against the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline in Vancouver, March 2014. Photo: Zack Embree

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 been a month of mostly good news for Enbridge and Kinder Morgan, the two companies pushing to build major pipeline projects from Alberta’s oilsands to British Columbia’s coast.

Quick recap: on April 11, the National Post reported that the federal government is drawing up a pipeline implementation strategy for Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Expansion Project and TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline.

Two weeks later, Bloomberg noted the federal government is reevaluating its tanker ban on the province’s northern coast, which currently bars exports from the Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline. On the same day (April 25), Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement project was quietly approved by the National Energy Board, boosting future exports by 370,000 barrels/day.

Capping off the busy spell is the May 6 announcement that Enbridge has requested a three year extension from the National Energy Board for the Northern Gateway pipeline. The company is required to begin construction by 2016 according to its current permits but says it needs more time to lock down legal permissions and further consult with Indigenous peoples.

The reinvigoration of these pipeline projects come on the heels of a major lobbying effort by both Enbridge and Kinder Morgan.

Enbridge and Kinder Morgan Met with Federal Officials a Combined 37 Times Since October

Since the federal Liberals were elected in October 2015, Enbridge has met with federal officials 20 times, including two meetings with Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr, another two meetings with Fisheries and Oceans Minister Hunter Tootoo and one meeting with Transport Minister Marc Garneau.

The company, represented in lobbying activities by CEO Al Monaco, met with Janet Annesley, chief of staff of the Department of Natural Resources and former vice president for communications at the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, another three times.

In that same span, Kinder Morgan Canada president Ian Anderson lobbied federal officials 17 times. Four of those meetings included Bob Hamilton, deputy minister of the Department of Natural Resources. The company met with Timothy Gardiner, director general of the department of Natural Resources, another three times.

It also lobbied Gerald Butts, principal secretary and right-hand man for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, as well as Environment and Climate Change Canada’s chief of staff Marlo Raynolds.

Pipeline Companies ‘Absolutely Desperate to Start Construction’

Such numbers don’t match Suncor’s 46 registered lobbying efforts since October. But they’re certainly notable.

“The concern is that corporations from Texas like Kinder Morgan are able to purchase undue influence due to their ability to afford an army of lobbyists,” says Kai Nagata, Dogwood Initiative’s energy and democracy director. “The content of their lobbying, to my mind, has got to be pretty clear. They’re absolutely desperate to start construction.”

“The longer that they are forced to delay their project, especially in the current price environment, the longer that a review takes, the more their project costs increase and the more money they lose, and the more restless their shippers become,” he adds.

The federal government has attempted to appear neutral on the subject of pipelines, reiterating that the review process conducted by the National Energy Board is intended to be independent.

But the Alberta government has taken a much more aggressive stance, pushing hard for both Kinder Morgan and Energy East despite significant opposition from Indigenous and climate activists.

Resurrected Northern Gateway to Make Kinder Morgan More Appealing

Which makes the rumours around Northern Gateway rather confounding.

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley previously expressed skepticism about the future of the project. Shortly before the province’s election in 2015, she stated that “I think that there’s just too much environmental sensitivity there and I think there’s a genuine concern by the indigenous communities.”

Little has changed on those fronts. The recent B.C. Supreme Court ruling on the province’s failure to consult with Gitga'at and other Coastal First Nations about the pipeline will further delay the project.

Nagata suggests that Enbridge hasn’t counted on Northern Gateway in its business plan for many years (it’s set to spend billions in the coming years on renewable energy projects).

In other words, the supposed resuscitation of the project may serve as a clever piece of horse trading to make other projects appear as the lesser of two evils compared to the highly contentious Northern Gateway.

“[They’ll] throw it under the bus as a sacrifice to move Kinder Morgan or Energy East forward,” Nagata says. “But in order for that strategy to work, they have to make Northern Gateway appear viable.”

Potential Bilateral Trade Deal with China May Increase Pressure on Governments

Such moves require careful coordination. That’s where effective lobbying efforts may well come in.

Nagata suggests that pressures may also be coming from China, which Canada is preparing (and might have already started) to negotiate a free-trade agreement with: “China has made no secret of its desire for a West Coast pipeline and greater ownership of Canadian oil companies,” he says.

Such realities put Canadian politicians in a very tricky spot, given they’re already subject to annual budget cycles and fickle public opinion.

But Nagata emphasizes that B.C. residents aren’t about to sacrifice the province’s coast to make up for poor planning by the governments of Alberta and Canada. If the National Energy Board and federal government ends up approving the Kinder Morgan project, it will come with legal and political ramifications, he says.

“It’s a risky strategy, because I can tell you it’s certainly motivating British Columbians to take a stand for their interests,” he says. “This is a short-term move that will have long-term consequences for these politicians and their political brands, especially in B.C.”

Image: PMO

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.

Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr has reiterated the federal government’s pledge to overhaul the National Energy Board in order to restore public confidence in Canada’s pipeline review process. But the promised legislative changes will not come quickly.

"You don't rush your way into decisions that affect not only today, but generationally in Canada in the new world of sustainably moving resources to market," Carr said Monday while attending the federal cabinet’s retreat in New Brunswick.

Over the last month, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan requested Carr and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau suspend the review of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline to avoid a decision being pushed through a process they claim is “deeply flawed.” Trans Mountain’s final hearings began as scheduled on January 19 in Burnaby, British Columbia.

"The minister is correct, we shouldn’t rush the creation of a new process,” Andrea Harden-Donahue, energy and climate justice campaigner with the Council of Canadians, said. “But continuing with the flawed Kinder Morgan and Energy East reviews is entirely inconsistent with Liberal promises. How can a 'transition strategy' rectify the failings around public participation and Indigenous consultation for these projects. I don't see how this can happen."

“We are not saying pipeline companies have to go back to square one,” Harden-Donahue told DeSmog Canada. “All evidence submitted goes on hold and this can be supplemented with additional evidence after the changes are made.”

Trudeau’s government has been clear on several occasions pipeline projects currently under National Energy Board review will not be forced to go back to “square one,” that is, begin their application process completely from scratch.

The legislative changes during the Harper government’s 2012 omnibus bill frenzy severely weakened key pieces of environmental protection legislative like the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Species At Risk Act. The National Energy Board Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act were also altered to ensure proposed pipelines made it through the regulatory process within 15-months, no matter how complex those projects may be.

“Some pipeline reviews may fall into that time limit. On the other hand, large projects with clear risks like Energy East or Kinder Morgan may not and this is problematic,” Harden-Donahue told DeSmog Canada.

There is little doubt the massive surge of public participation in the Northern Gateway pipeline hearings in B.C. served as the impetus for the Harper government to slap time limits on project reviews. With the exception of the Mackenzie Gas Project, the Board took less than 15 months to make its decisions on project applications between 2004 and 2012.

The controversial Northern Gateway proposal to pipe oilsands (also called tar sands) bitumen to B.C.’s northern coast drew records numbers of public participants for regulatory hearings and took four years to complete. The Board approved the project, albeit with over 200 conditions, in 2014.

By allowing pipeline reviews to proceed under the previous federal government’s rules, the Liberal government may be condemning projects to go back to ‘square one’ regardless. First Nations, and environmental organizations over the last four years have not been hesitant to take pipeline reviews to court over violations of ‘aboriginal’ rights or the freedom of expression.

In some cases, pipeline opponents are winning these legal battles, particularly those launched by First Nations.

Last week, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled in favour of coastal First Nations who argued in their case against Northern Gateway that the B.C. government fail to consult them about the pipeline proposal. The provincial government is now required to meaningfully consult coastal First Nations on the project, which many believe to be dead already.

Similar scenarios could play out for other pipeline projects.

The Board’s review of Trans Mountain faces a legal challenge by Tsleil-Waututh First Nation. Energy East has not come up against a legal case yet, but Treaty 3 First Nations in Ontario have vowed not to allow the pipeline to go through their territory without their free, prior and informed consent.

Line 9 pipeline, one of the first pipelines to be approved by the Board in the post-2012 omnibus bill era, is also being challenge by Deshkaan Ziibing (Chippewas of the Thames). The Ontario First Nation plans on taking their case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Image Credit: Shannon Ramos 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.

The provincial government did not fulfill its legal obligation to consult with First Nations on the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The case, brought forward by the Gitga’at and other coastal First Nations, argued the province erred when it handed over decision-making authority for the project to the federal government under a provincial-federal Joint Review Process managed by the federal National Energy Board.

B.C. granted Ottawa authority over the project’s environmental review in a 2010 equivalency agreement. That agreement, however, did not release the province from the legal duty to consult First Nations, the B.C. Supreme Court found.

“It’s a very significant ruling,” Elin Sigurdson, lawyer with JFK Law, said. “The coastal First Nations and Gita’at were very successful in the application to quash the equivalency agreement which means the province now has to consult with First Nations that will be affected by matters in the provincial jurisdiction and has to conduct a new environmental assessment for the project.”

In December 2013 a Joint Review Panel recommended the federal government approve the pipeline, slated to carry 525,000 barrels of oilsands crude to the B.C coast each day, subject to 209 conditions, one of which was “consultation with aboriginal communities.” Federal cabinet approved the pipeline in June 2014.

Greg Rickford, former Natural Resources Minister under the Harper government, suggested at the time that the duty to consult with First Nations resided with Enbridge.

"The proponent clearly has more work to do in order to fulfil the public commitment it has made to engage with aboriginal groups and local communities along the route," Rickford said in a government press release.

“The duty to consult as a constitutional obligation does not lie with Enbridge,” Sigurdson said. “The Crown always has to ensure that the duty to consult was discharged in a meaningful way.”

Heiltsuk Chief Marilyn Slett said the ruling is a “great victory.”

“We’re feeling really good about it,” she said. “We’re just so committed to our community and protecting our coast.”

“It’s affirming to know that there’s a responsibility to come back and talk to the people these kinds of projects will affect.”

Slett said the government acknowledged the need to address First Nations concerns in Premier Christy Clark’s five conditions for oil pipelines.

“In terms of the government saying they are doing what they are supposed to be doing, well today shows [Christy Clark] has to be held accountable, to consult with us.”

“We stand our ground, around protecting who we are as people and our communities. This strengthens all of us,” she said. “We’re in it together.”

Susan Smitten, executive director of RAVEN Trust, said the ruling will mean major delays for a project that is already mired in uncertainty.

“All the coastal nations that will be affected by components within B.C. jurisdiction will have to be consulted, which will take time,” she said. “An environmental assessment would also take time.”

She added her organization is delighted with today’s win. “This is what we live for: to see Indigenous Peoples successfully see their issues through the courts.”

In September the B.C. Environmental Appeal Board ruled B.C. handed out scientifically flawed long-term water withdrawal permits to Nexen, a company with fracking operations in northern B.C.

The board found B.C. failed to properly consult with the Fort Nelson First Nation when issuing the water licence and ordered its cancellation, effectively immediately. The board also ruled B.C. failed to operate in good faith with the Fort Nelson First Nation and that the province’s consultation process was “seriously flawed.”

According to Sigurdson, the province may need to change its approach to consultation.

The province should have ensured the equivalency agreement met the needs of First Nations that stood to be affected by the Northern Gateway pipeline, she said.

“They were supposed to have consulted and it was not honourable for them to not do that.”

Consultation “has to mean something,” Sigurdson said. “It’s an obligation grounded in a solemn constitutional promise to preserve and protect the aboriginal rights of First Nations in Canada.”

“It can’t just be window dressing,” she said.

“It has to be real and meaningful dialogue. You can’t just have pretend consultation stand in the place of performing the actual obligation of giving information, hearing concerns and responding to them — actually engaging the concerns. “

“If you’re not doing that, you’re not doing the consultation required.”

Image: Mandy Nahanee, member of the Squamish First Nation at a rally, June 2014. Photo: Zack Embree.

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 August 2014, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau made the trek to the tiny Gitga’at community of Hartley Bay, located along Enbridge’s proposed oil tanker route in northwestern B.C.

There, in the village of 200 people accessible only by air and water, he met with community elders and Art Sterritt, executive director of the Coastal First Nations.

“He came to Gitga’at because he wanted to make sure he was making the right decision in terms of Northern Gateway and being there certainly confirmed that,” Sterritt told DeSmog Canada on Tuesday.

“My confidence level went up immensely when Justin … visited Gitga’at.”

Two months before that visit, in May 2014, Trudeau told reporters in Ottawa that if he became prime minister “the Northern Gateway Pipeline will not happen.”

With Monday’s majority win by Trudeau, Sterritt — who retired three weeks ago from his role with Coastal First Nations — says he is “elated” and “Northern Gateway is now dead.”

“I know they’re going to live up to the commitments that they’ve made. I have absolutely no doubt about that,” Sterritt said, while taking a break from carving a totem pole. “Tears of joy will be flowing in Gitga’at.”

The fight against the 525,000-barrel-a-day oilsands pipeline goes back more than a decade.

“We’ve gone through some tough times with all that’s been peddled in the past decade, especially the last few years — all that’s been done to pave the way for oil,” Sterritt said. 

“There were many, many, many people who worked every day to stop Northern Gateway from jeopardizing everything we stand for.”

'Promises are Promises': Trudeau Will Face Corporate Pressure, But Must Hold Firm

Gerald Amos, former elected chief of Haisla, told DeSmog Canada communities are  going to have to keep up that fight to make sure the project dies.

“There’s a pretty darn good sense now that it won’t see the light of day,” Amos said. “It’s going to be a huge challenge for Justin Trudeau to make it happen, but promises are promises.”

That “challenge” will be in the form of corporate pressure, Amos said.

“I don’t think we should underestimate the power of the corporations,” he said. “I think that there’s going to be a lot of pressure come to bear on them from the corporate world.”

Smithers Mayor Taylor Bachrach is also cautiously optimistic.

“There are probably community leaders and First Nations and people all across the northwest waking up this morning with a sense of relief that that particular pipeline is no longer looming over our heads,” Bachrach told DeSmog Canada.

“It’s been a long road and it’s brought people together, but it will be nice to move on to other conversations about the future of our region.”

Bachrach said it’s too early to say definitively that Northern Gateway is dead, but added: “Mr. Trudeau has made clear commitments to the region and I look forward to having him follow through.”

Enbridge did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

Fight Againt Enbridge Northern Gateway Has Brought Communities Together

Terry Teegee, tribal chief for the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, said he’s always been confident Northern Gateway will be defeated due to court cases led by two Carrier-Sekani communities.

But he also emphasized that communities can’t let up until the project is dead for sure.

“I hope he lives up to that commitment and kills the project,” Teegee said. “Now that we have them in a place where we want them, we can’t let up politically or judicially until the project is dropped.”

Fighting Enbridge “has cost a lot of energy and a lot of resources and a lot of our time,” Teegee said.

But the fight has also brought communities together.

“We really are testing our rights and title, we’re testing our mettle as people. It really helped us develop relationships beyond our asserted title,” Teegee said.

“Asserting our rights and title collectively, we can really determine our own future, we can determine how development happens in our territory, we can determine what happens on a national scale. It would really send a message to oil and gas companies that it’s not ‘business as usual.’ You really need consent of First Nations."

Teegee thinks the battle over Northern Gateway has planted the seeds for a more proactive, productive conversation about the future.

“The next step is to keep the momentum going and start really discussing our issues. I think we need to have a real talk about energy and having an energy strategy for our people,” he said. 

Conservative Bullying Backfired in B.C.

Sterritt said ultimately the Conservatives misjudged British Columbia.

“Harper and Joe Oliver made the mistake of thinking they were going to bully their way through British Columbia,” Sterritt added. “They realized they made a mistake and have been pretty quiet for a long time.”

Enbridge’s Northern Gateway proposal hasn’t been the only oil pipeline proposed for northern B.C., however.

“We’ve got lots of noise,” Sterritt said. “We’ve got Mr. Black pushing for a refinery. You’ve got Eagle Spirit proposing something similar. But these are all just proposals. I think in light of how the people in the Pacific Northwest look at their place, I think these other projects are going to be hard-pressed to try to move ahead in the wake of Northern Gateway.”

In June 2010, the Liberal Party of Canada declared its support for legislation banning oil tankers on B.C.’s north coast. If that legislation is passed, it will spell the end of all oil tanker proposals for northern B.C.

Trudeau has also said the review process of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain oil export plan, which would see hundreds of oil tankers a year transit Vancouver’s harbour, will need to be re-done.

Image: Liberal MP Jody Wilson-Raybould, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Art Sterritt walk on the boardwalk in Hartley Bay, B.C.

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.

Starting today the federal government will face 18 separate challenges against the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline in the Federal Court of Appeal in Vancouver.

A consolidated group of environmental organizations, one labour union and First Nations are fighting the approval of the project on the grounds that the federal government violated First Nations rights, failed to protect species at risk and did not consider the full impacts of an oil spill in its decision.

Chris Tollefson, lawyer from the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre and counsel for appellant B.C. Nature, said the case demonstrates the importance of due process when making decisions on major infrastructure projects like oil and gas pipelines.

“This case has the potential to affirm how important it is to have a robust federal environmental assessment law that holds project proponents to account,” he said.

Challenges presented by First Nations appellants will be presented over the next two days, Tollefson explained, with environmental groups following. The trial will stretch over six days, the longest a case has ever been before the Federal Court of Appeals.

Appellants represented in the hearing include the Gitga’at First Nation, Gitxaala Nation, Haida Nation, Haisla Nation, Heiltsuk Nation, Kitasoo Xai’Xais Nation, Nadleh Whut’en, Nak’azdli Whut’en, B.C. Nature, ForestEthics Advocacy Association, Living Oceans Society, Raincoast Conservation Foundation and Unifor.

The 1,177-kilometre Northern Gateway pipeline is a twin pipeline proposed to carry diluted bitumen from the Alberta oilsands to the Douglas Channel in Kitimat, B.C. A westbound pipeline would carry up to 525,000 barrels of diluted bitumen per day to the B.C. coast, while an eastbound pipeline would carry 193,000 barrels of condensate per day to Alberta. The project received federal approval in June 2014, pending more than 200 conditions.

The pipeline review process galvanized the environmental community and First Nations across B.C. in an unprecedented wave of opposition. 

“Allowing these proposals to proceed is not an option,” Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, told the audience at a press conference this morning.

“All of Haida Gwaii is going to stand up to protect our island,” Peter Lantin, president of the Haida Nation said. "The threats being posed to us are leading to unprecedented collaboration.”

"If this decision is not overturned, decades of work with government and Haida will be unravelled," Lantin said.

"Canada hasn't looked after the lands and people,” Rueben George, from the Tsleil-wau-tuth First Nation, said. “That's why these Nations are here."

A “United Against Enbridge” rally is set to take place on the steps of the federal court today at 12:30pm.

"Enbridge cannot be trusted to build and operate a pipeline that exposes some of our most precious watersheds and ecosystems to the risk of a catastrophic oil spill," Nikki Skuce, senior energy campaigner with ForestEthics Advocacy, said in a press release.

Ivan Giesbrecht, spokesman for Northern Gateway, said Enbridge recognizes the rights of First Nations.

"Our ongoing priority is to continue to build trust, engage in respectful dialogues and build meaningful partnerships with First Nations and Métis communities," Giesbrecht said in a press release.

"Despite this litigation, we remain committed to working collaboratively with the applicant First Nations and would be very pleased to develop mutually beneficial solutions with them."

For a legal backgrounder on the challenges being raised in this case, see West Coast Environmental Law’s summary.

Image: Kerri Coles

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.

Some of the strongest legal challenges against the federally approved Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline come from B.C.’s First Nations and supporters from across B.C. are digging into their pockets to help ensure those are a success.

Pull Together, a grassroots campaign to raise funds for the legal challenges of six First Nations, has been so successful organizers are bumping their goal from $250,000 up to $300,000 by December 31.

On Thursday the Haidi Nation announced they would join the initiative alongside the Gitxaala, Heiltsuk, Kitaxoo/Xai’xias, Nadleh Whut’en and Nak’azdli Nations to carry legal challenges forward against Enbridge’s project.

“The Pull Together campaign is driven by people who care and are politically astute,” said kil tlaats ‘gaa Peter Lantin, President of the Haida Nation. “They can see how the future of the country is shaping up and want to be part of it.”

Chief Marilyn Slett of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council said the fight against the Northern Gateway is a “global issue.”

“It’s an issue that we all should be standing up to protect the land and the sea, we have that responsibility as human beings.”

First Nations lead legal challenge against Northern Gateway

First Nations hold unique constitutional powers in Canada and assert Canada’s “duty to consult and accommodate” leaves individual nations with the ultimate decision-making power over resource projects on traditional territories.

Since 2010 over 100 First Nations have signed the Save the Fraser Declaration, an indigenous-law based agreement definitively banning oil pipelines and tankers in their territories. In 2010 nine coastal First Nations signed the Coastal First Nations Declaration that pledged “oil tankers carrying crude oil from the Alberta Tar Sands will not be allows to transit our lands and waters.”

According to a legal analysis performed by West Coast Environmental Law, B.C.’s First Nations “have the right to issue a ban on oil pipelines and crude oil tankers in their territories, based in their own ancestral laws, in Canadian constitutional law, and in international law.”

At least nine legal challenges have been launched by First Nations to stop the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline from being built. After the federal government approved the pipeline, a large group of First Nations, Councils and Assemblies launched a joint federal suit announcing,  “we will defend our territories whatever the cost may be.”

While some have criticized these legal arguments as tenuous, a historic decision in the June 2014 Williams Case for the first time acknowledged a local First Nation, the Tsilhqot’in, has legal title to their traditional territories. This sets a legal precedent for other First Nations to make similar claims to legal rights and title over their lands.

Under the Tsilhqot’in decision, economic development can still proceed on traditional territories with local First Nations’ consent or where the government can demonstrate that development is pressing and substantial.

As part of its pre-construction conditions Enbridge must prove it adequately consulted with all potentially affected First Nations and that it has plans in place to mitigate or repair any damage caused by the construction and operation of a pipeline on traditional lands.

Individuals, businesses, faith groups get behind B.C.’s First Nations

Over 30 businesses and more than 1,000 individual donors have come together in more than 100 online fundraisers to help Pull Together, an initiative of the Sierra Club BC and Victoria-based legal defense fund RAVEN, work towards its goal.

“British Columbians do not want First Nations to stand alone against Enbridge and they’re demonstrating this with passion, creativity and their wallets,” said Sierra Club BC campaigns director Caitlyn Vernon. “It’s incredible to think that Pull Together began in the summer with a community group in Terrace raising $2,000, and now we have raised a hundred times that.”

SumofUs.org, a global corporate watchdog and advocacy group, raised more than $40,000 for Pull Together and Heiltsuk councilor, Jess Housty, contributed over $5,700 from funds her and her husband raised at their October 18th wedding.

Moksha yoga studios are also participating in a “Stretch Across B.C. Challenge” which has raised $8,500 from participating studios across the province. The community of Pender Island raised over $4,000 by hosting a local concert and the United Church of Canada pledged to fundraise from its congregations throughout the month of November.  

Susan Smitten, executive director of RAVEN said financing legal challenges against the pipeline is a “an extensive, costly legal process.”

“The next stage involves gathering all of the evidence required for the Nations to make their cases at Court,” she said.

“While the Nations are committed to going it alone, standing together and pooling resources with all British Columbians ensures equal access to justice and a successful outcome with much more likelihood of success.”

Image Credit: Mandy Nahanee speaking at The Answer is Still NO!, a public rally in response to the Northern Gateway federal approval. Photo by Zack Embree.

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.

None have captured the unique beauty and wildlife of British Columbia’s Great Bear Rainforest like acclaimed photographer Ian McAllister.

A resident and long-time conservationist of the unique coastal wilderness, McAllister has intimately documented the region and its iconic species, like the spirit bear, for over 25 years. Much of the landscape — renowned for its biodiversity, including intricate networks of salmon, bears and wolves — is now endangered as energy projects threaten to transform the very existence of the ecosystem, McAllister explains.

“Canada supports the longest coastline in the world and yet we have only protected one per cent of its marine waters,” McAllister said. “And now we have oil and gas projects being proposed that have the ability to destroy everything here in a single event.”

“There is no question that the battle to protect our oceans remains among the last conservation frontiers on planet earth. And our very survival depends on how successful we are in the coming years.”

Great Bear Wild – Dispatches from a Northern Rainforest from Pacific Wild on Vimeo.

That battle is precisely what McAllister is now on the road to highlight through his new book, Great Bear Wild.

A mixture of photographs and personal narrative, Great Bear Wild celebrates the legendary beauty of the region at a time when political tensions around the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and expansion of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline are at an all-time high.

Image from Great Bear Wild – Dispatches from a Northern Rainforest from Pacific Wild on Vimeo.

Image from Great Bear Wild – Dispatches from a Northern Rainforest from Pacific Wild on Vimeo.

Image from Great Bear Wild – Dispatches from a Northern Rainforest from Pacific Wild on Vimeo.

“Everything is at stake here: our climate, our coastline, our communities,” McAllister said. “And it is our hope that these images and these stories continue to remind us of its fragile beauty while also ensuring it remains as wild and fully functioning as it has for so many thousands of years.”

Image from Great Bear Wild – Dispatches from a Northern Rainforest from Pacific Wild on Vimeo.

McAllister will be speaking in Victoria on Wednesday, November 12 at the Alix Goolden Hall.

Upcoming Great Bear Wild Book Tour Dates:

Wednesday, November 12 at 7:30pm

Alix Goolden Hall, Victoria – $12

Thursday, November 13 at 7pm

Quw’utsun Centre, Duncan – By Donation

Friday, November 14 at 7pm

Charlie White Theatre, Sidney – $12

Tuesday, November 18 at 7pm

South End Hall, Galiano – By Donation

Wednesday, November 19 at 7:30pm

Tidemark Theatre, Campbell River – $12

Thursday, November 20 at 7:30pm

Sid Williams Theatre, Courtenay – $12

Friday, November 21

Powell River – Details TBD

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 spite of the ink that has been devoted to arguing about how many jobs Enbridge Northern Gateway is promising to Kitimat residents, one of the most compelling bits of evidence may be an update to a community planning document produced by the District of Kitimat in 2008. 

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 Will Horter, executive director of the Dogwood Initiative. It was originally published in the Toronto Star.

Earthquakes happen rarely in Canadian politics, but the fault lines are shifting again on the West Coast. As the next federal election draws closer, conditions below the surface should remind political observers of another seismic event a generation ago.

Back in the early 1990s, Stephen Harper and the insurgent Reform Party forced a tectonic shift, unleashing a powerful wave of western alienation that has realigned Canadian politics to this day. Their slogan was: “The West wants in.”

You could sum up the feeling in British Columbia lately as, “The West wants out.” Today you could get in your car in Kenora and drive clear across the Prairies to the coast without ever leaving a blue Conservative riding. But the road through the Rocky Mountains could become tricky indeed if Harper’s party doesn’t change course.

The central question for British Columbians, as it was for Albertans in the 1980s and ’90s, is this: who gets to decide what’s in our best interest — Ottawa or the people who live here?

As pundits debate the technical merits of crude oil and coal export proposals through B.C., they miss the deeper sense of alienation that’s taking hold. British Columbians and especially First Nations are growing increasingly resentful of decisions they feel have been imposed on them from the outside.

A poll this year by the Manning Centre (led by Harper’s former boss, Preston Manning) found fully 68 per cent of people in B.C. feel the country is going in the wrong direction. Asked why the number was so high, the former Reform Party leader said “pipelines.”

People in B.C. don’t want out of Canada, but they want out of the Harper government’s national energy plan, such as it is. Becoming a fossil-fuel export “superpower,” in Harper’s words, holds little appeal for communities caught between Alberta’s oilsands and the refineries in Asia.

A powerful majority of British Columbians, including plenty of Tory voters, simply aren’t willing to risk their magnificent coast, local health and existing jobs for the benefit of global energy corporations — especially China’s voracious state-owned oil giants.

What shifted the tectonic plates in Alberta over decades was the chronic feeling that the federal government was preoccupied with Quebec and Ontario, leaving the West to act as the piggy bank for central Canada.

The earthquake was triggered by then prime minister Pierre Trudeau, whose infamous National Energy Program was seen as a way to redistribute wealth generated in the Alberta oilpatch to Ottawa.

Albertans were furious. A popular sticker on many truck bumpers at the time read: “Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark.” (A reprint would probably do a brisk trade in many B.C. communities today.)

Twenty-five years on, the centre of power has shifted to Alberta. The National Energy Program is replaced in the current drama by the the National Energy Board, tasked with rubber-stamping the Enbridge and Kinder Morgan pipeline proposals. The electoral battlegrounds are different, but the conversations on the doorstep remain the same.

Harper is the grassroots activist who once wrote to Alberta premier Ralph Klein: “It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction.”

Now Harper is the federal government, responsible for pushing unwanted projects on an unwilling province. It’s startling how far he has strayed from his populist, Reform Party roots.

Here’s another way of understanding the situation: imagine Enbridge’s crude oil pipeline and oil tanker project had been proposed for Quebec and not B.C.

What would happen if Ottawa appointed a three-person panel to review a controversial infrastructure proposal and not a single Quebecer was appointed to the panel?

Suppose before the panel even held hearings, a federal cabinet minister blasted citizens signed up for the pipeline review as “foreign radicals,” working to sabotage Canada’s national interest? What would the local newspapers say when leaked documents revealed Harper had sent CSIS and the RCMP to illegally spy on peaceful opponents?

If Ottawa forced through such a project in the face of majority opposition in Quebec, the pundits wouldn’t be talking about respecting the “due process” of the hearings. They’d be using the s-word.

There is a major difference between B.C. and its provincial cousins to the east. Here, the land question was never settled. First Nations for the most part have never signed treaties with the federal government. Mix in the alienation felt by everyday voters and the political stakes are high indeed.

Underestimating the tectonic shift underway in British Columbia could lead to a political earthquake in 2015. The results could change Canadian politics for a generation.

Image Credit: Chief Ian Campbell of the Squamish First Nation. Photo by Kris Krug.

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.