Canada’s Environment Minister, Leona Aglukkaq, gave Shell Canada up to three weeks to cap any subsea blowout that might result from future petroleum exploration off Nova Scotia’s South Shore. Similar legislation in the U.S. requires companies to cap a ruptured well within 24 hours.

The three-week time period is included in Shell Canada’s capping plan, a part of the company’s proposed Shelburne Basin Venture Exploration Drilling Project. Minister Aglukkaq green-lighted the project on June 15 following an assessment by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Under the plan, a blowout would spill oil or gas into the ocean for up to 21 days before Shell would be required to have a capping stack or marine well containment system in place.

Capping stacks buy time for engineers to plan a permanent seal or a diversion of hydrocarbons at the site of a blowout. Because they can weigh 50 to 100 tons, transporting and maneuvering stacking caps to the site and onto a blowout can be time consuming and difficult.

Allowing Shell up to three weeks to contain a blowout means that the company does not have to retain the expensive capping equipment on shore in Nova Scotia or aboard a nearby vessel. Rather, Shell states in the assessment that the equipment can be deployed from Norway with backups in Scotland, South Africa, Brazil and Singapore.

Nova Scotia Decision Pending

John Davis, a photographer for National Geographic, is taking some credit for exposing this issue to public scrutiny and for forcing the regulator to defend its position rather than simply rubber-stamping the environmental assessment.

“We’ve called them on it,” said Davis in an interview with DeSmog Canada. Davis is also a concerned citizen with a lifetime of experience on the oceans as a former fisherman, fish plant owner and resident of Nova Scotia’s South Shore.

“The only good thing is we got them to say, ‘We are reviewing this and maybe something will change.’”

Stuart Pinks, CEO of the Canada Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, the joint regulator of the industry in Nova Scotia waters, told the CBC in an August 6 interview he is still “knee deep” in the review of the Shell application.

In a statement posted to the regulator’s website the board notes it is conducting an “extensive review” of Shell’s proposed exploratory program and has yet to make a final decision based on the federal environmental assessment.

“The CNSOPB will only authorize Shell Canada’s proposed drilling program once it is satisfied that they are taking all reasonable precautions to ensure that the program proceeds safely and in a manner that protects the environment.”

Following the regulator’s interview with the CBC, Davis said, “Now they’re going to have to consider the environmental safety of the South Shore of Nova Scotia and the fishing industry and communities that exist there.”

Pinks claimed that blowouts are a rare occurrence and that a capping stack is just one piece of equipment among a whole set of systems and processes assessed for the prevention and mitigation of incidents like blowouts. “Blowout prevention would be the main line of defence,” said Pinks who was adamant that his board will require and review a well-capping plan.

In response, Davis pointed out that exploratory wells are particularly dangerous.

“The largest oil well spills are from exploration wells,” he said, citing recent accidents off Australia, the Caspian Sea and in the Gulf of Mexico with the Deepwater Horizon. Davis said the danger of blowouts in exploratory wells comes from the inability of oil companies to predict the backpressure of a well until a drill breaks into a reserve.

In 2010, the BP Deep Water Horizon platform exploded during a blowout that killed 11 workers and dumped 4.9 million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico at enormous cost to wildlife, habitat and livelihoods. Crude flowed for 87 days before the well was finally sealed. A report in 2012 found that the well still leaks.

Davis is troubled by this recent history. “If you look at Deep Water Horizon, they were in about 1000 metres. Shell is going to be in about 3000 metres of water. [BP was] 80 or 90 kilometres offshore. Shell is going to be 250 kilometres offshore.”

“They are in deeper water, in environments that are much harsher, at the very edge of their technological capability.”

Contrasting U.S. Regulations

In comparison to the leeway granted Shell by the Canadian government, U.S. regulations require marine blowouts to be capped within 24 hours. To achieve this goal, companies need to keep stacking caps close to offshore wells.

For a marine drilling project off Alaska, Shell keeps a stacking cap aboard a nearby vessel as required by the American equivalent of the Canadian Department of the Environment.

Pinks said the Alaska comparison is not a fair one because ice can move in very quickly, making the presence of a capping stack nearby essential.

But Davis does buy Pinks’ claim: “He’s blowing smoke. Ice floats at the surface and the capping stack is at the sea floor. Shell knows when the ice is coming. The drilling stops well before any ice arrives at their site. That was a red herring. That was Mr. Pinks pretending that Alaska has a problem we don’t have here.” 

Pinks would not say whether or not the Shell Canada plan for the Shelburne Basin would require the presence of a stacking cap as in other jurisdictions around the world.

“We don’t look at each component in isolation,” he said.

Whatever equipment is brought into play, Davis is asking for one assurance. “Surely we can clean up oil in the offshore. That’s the simple request everyone on the South Shore should be making to our Minister of the Environment and to our Alberta-based, petrochemical government.”

Image: Shell

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 Mike De Souza. It originally appeared on mikedesouza.com and is republished here with permission. 

Ten days ago, I asked Environment Canada whether any of its scientists would be available for interviews about their research.

The department hasn’t yet answered this question along with others.

The questions arose following the publication of a new study concluding that deposits of toxic mercury were forming a bull’s eye around oilsands operations in Alberta.

The scientists who did the research from Environment Canada were previously discouraged from talking about their work at a science conference in 2011, according to documents released through access to information legislation.

Those documents included a script that suggested they downplay human health impacts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a toxin that can originate from smokestacks in oilsands facilities or other industrial development, by comparing it to food fit for consumption.

“If pressed on human health (say that) these (oilsands) substances are also found in BBQ’ed steak,” said the script, which was shared with the offices of former natural resources minister Joe Oliver – now the finance minister – and former environment minister Peter Kent, who is still sitting as a Conservative MP.

While the department appears to be struggling to answer basic questions about this script and other science-related questions, its minister, Leona Aglukkaq, has declined to answer some questions about her own opinions and approach.

As part of this recently published story in InsideClimate News about Quebec and California’s innovative cap and trade system to tackle industrial greenhouse gases and fight climate change, we asked the minister’s office if it could share her opinion about these cross-border efforts to make polluters pay. But her spokeswoman declined to comment and forwarded questions (about the minister’s opinions) to non-partisan public servants at Environment Canada.

The federal department has recently released a new “science guide” with five key principles designed to help it fulfill its mandate: Relevance, transparency, responsiveness, excellence and collaboration.

But it’s not clear what the department means by “transparency” or “responsiveness” along with the other guiding principles.

Aglukkaq was recently pressed in the House of Commons by NDP MPs François Choquette and Kennedy Stewart to address allegations that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government is censoring information about scientific research.

Stewart alleged that Aglukkaq was “forcing staff her staff to parrot” the grilled steak comparison.

“But the question still remains,” Stewart said on June 5 in the Commons. “A government study confirms raised mercury levels surrounding the oil sands. It actually calls it a bull’s eye around the oil sands. The scientist who wrote the report is mysteriously unavailable for comment. Will the minister spare us the rhetoric and instead unmuzzle our scientists so Canadians can hear the truth?”

Aglukkaq responded by suggesting that the Harper government was showing transparency by allowing the scientific research to be published.

“We worked with the province of Alberta to launch a world-class scientific monitoring system of the oil sands,” Aglukkaq told the Commons in response to Stewart. “It is a transparent and public process. Some of Canada’s top scientists are involved. The report shows our plan is working. We will continue to be transparent and promote independent scientific assessment and evaluation…”

But the minister, her department and the government have still not answered more than a dozen questions. Here is a partial list of what was asked and the “response” from the government:

1) Will any of the scientists from Environment Canada be available for interviews about their research in the future? No response.

2) When will these scientists be allowed to give interviews? No response.

3) If none of these scientists will be allowed to speak publicly about their research, would you be able to provide an explanation? No response.

4) What efforts has Environment Canada taken to measure levels of mercury, VOCs, PAHs or other pollutants coming from oilsands facilities at their source? No response.

5) How does Environment Canada know that pollution levels reported by oilsands companies in their inventory reports are accurate? No response.

6) Does Environment Canada believe the concentrations of PAHs in barbecued steaks are comparable to the concentrations of PAHs produced as a result of industrial development in the oilsands? No response.

7) Can you provide some background scientific details about how a comparison with barbecued steak realistically represents the nature of harmful substances found in waters or ecosystems near oilsands production? No response.

Questions to Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq:

1) How many times has the minister met in boardrooms of oil and gas companies or with CAPP since she was named minister?

2) How does she approach these meetings and how does she prepare for them?

3) Has she ever personally felt intimidated by having to deal directly with executives from the oil and gas industry?

4) Does she approach the meetings in the same way she approaches meetings with other stakeholders?

5) What differences has she observed in the approach of oil and gas industry stakeholders versus the approach of other stakeholders?

Response from minister’s spokeswoman Amanda Gordon to all five questions:

Minister Aglukkaq meets with a range of stakeholders relevant to her portfolios to hear their views and perspectives. The interests of Canadians are Minister Aglukkaq’s top priority in all of her meetings.

Follow up questions:

1) What does making the interests of Canadians a top priority mean to the minister?

2) How does she do this or what evidence or examples can she give to demonstrate how she has done this?

Response prepared by non-partisan public servants at Environment Canada:

The department will be responding to you on this issue.

The Government of Canada is committed to protecting the environment while keeping the Canadian economy strong.

The Government has created three national wildlife areas, three marine protected areas, two national parks, two national marine conservation areas, and one national historic site since 2006 – for a total an area nearly twice the size of Vancouver Island. More than 90 000 hectares of wildlife habitat have also been protected and, thanks to federal investments, the Nature Conservancy of Canada has secured an additional 369 000 hectares. Moving forward, and as announced in the 2013 Speech from the Throne, the Canadian Government will unveil a new National Conservation Plan to further increase protected areas, focusing on stronger marine and coastal conservation. The Plan, which will be announced in 2014, will build upon conservation-related measures in Budget 2014, including encouraging donations under the Ecological Gifts Program, investing in national parks, conserving recreational fisheries, and supporting family-oriented conservation activities.

Considerable efforts are also dedicated to the conservation and protection of species at risk. An important milestone was the December 2013 publication of an Emergency Protection Order for the Greater Sage-Grouse under the Species at Risk Act, which came into force on February 18, 2014. This marked the first time that the federal government has issued such an order to protect a species facing imminent threats to its survival.

The Government of Canada believes that economic prosperity and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive goals. Through its Responsible Resource Development approach, Canada achieves the right balance to unleash the potential of its resource sectors to create high-value jobs while strengthening safety and environmental protection. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) is an important part of this approach. CEAA 2012 established legal timelines for environmental assessments and reduced duplication with provincial reviews. However, faster reviews do not mean substandard reviews. The government continues to have a rigorous environmental review process.

Environment Canada provides Canadians with high quality weather services and is currently working to strengthen its activities. This includes new investments in federal infrastructure such as radars, and surface weather and climate monitoring stations. Canadians will benefit from more timely, accurate weather warnings and forecasts in all parts of the country as a result of these important investments.

The Government has a strong, comprehensive approach to safeguard this country’s water resources. Canada’s collaboration with the United States led to an enhanced and renewed Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Government is investing in the Great Lakes Nutrient Initiative to address the re-emergence of algae caused by excessive phosphorous discharges, in the clean-up of Hamilton Harbour, and in the restoration of the ecological health of the Lake Simcoe area. The second phase of the Lake Winnipeg Basin Initiative has commenced and the St. Lawrence Action Plan has been renewed.

Environment Canada’s enforcement initiatives continue to help provide Canadians with a clean, safe and sustainable environment. In 2013 our enforcement team worked on a number of major prosecutions, including a $500,000 fine for the illegal use of pesticide in the waters of southwestern New Brunswick. This was one of the largest fines ever administered under the Fisheries Act.

With respect to greenhouse gases, the Government of Canada has taken action on two of the largest sources of emissions in this country-the transportation and electricity sectors. Canada was the first country to phase out traditional coal-fired electricity generation units. Thanks to our actions, this country’s 2020 greenhouse gas emissions are projected to be 128 megatonnes lower relative to where emissions had originally been projected to be in 2020 without action.

Internationally, Canada is actively participating in negotiations towards a single, new international climate change agreement that includes meaningful commitments by all major emitters. Canada has fully delivered on its fast-start financing commitment by providing $1.2 billion over 2010-2013, our largest ever contribution to international climate change finance. This funding is now supporting a range of climate change projects in over 60 developing countries. In addition, Canada is proud to be a lead partner in the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) to reduce short-lived climate pollutants, which are potent global warmers and dangerous air pollutants.

Email response from Environment Canada to request for interview with scientists who published research on mercury pollution in oilsands region:

While we are unable to arrange for an interview, I can provide you with a response on this issue.

To date, the results of environmental monitoring in the oil sands region show that low levels of oil sands development-related substances are present in both air and water.

Mercury levels found in the oil sands region snowpack near the development are above the background levels but below guidelines. Levels decrease with increasing distance from oil sands development.

Mercury levels are low compared with many industrial developments, and are only slightly higher than those found in relatively undeveloped areas such as northwestern Ontario.

Considering methylmercury is a neurotoxin that bioaccumulates in the food web, it is important to continue tracking mercury levels in the oil sands development area to ensure they remain below acceptable levels.

Summary of Major Findings:

Atmospheric deposition of mercury and methylmercury is elevated near major oil sands developments (i.e. loads reach over 1,000 and 19 ng/m2 for total mercury and methylmercury, respectively, at several sites in the vicinity of the oil sands development).

Maximum mercury loads in the oil sands region are low compared to those observed in contaminated region of the Northern hemisphere that are directly influenced by anthropogenic sources.

What is somewhat unique about our findings is that although mercury deposition is often elevated in industrial areas, methylmercury (the toxic form that bioaccumulates through food webs) is not often measured and is generally not thought to be deposited in atmospheric deposition in large quantities.

The raw data that went into generating the deposition maps will be made available on the Canada-Alberta Oil Sands Environmental Monitoring Information Portal in the coming months.

Concentrations of mercury in melted snow are under water quality guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life established by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME).

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 MikeDeSouza.com and is republished here with permission.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government is describing fresh allegations of muzzling as “absolutely ridiculous.”

Speaking in Parliament on Wednesday, Canadian Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq rejected criticism from opposition New Democratic Party MP Megan Leslie who said the government “will stop at nothing to hide the consequences of climate change.”

Leslie raised the issue in the Canadian House of Commons following comments from Environment Canada explaining that its meteorologists were not supposed to talk about climate change in media interviews.

“Climate change is real,” said Leslie, the NDP’s environment critic and deputy leader. “While media cannot contact most government scientists, it does have 24-hour-a-day access to meteorologists. Yet draconian government rules and fear of losing their jobs puts a gag on these meteorologists. They are avoiding talking about the crucial and scientific connection between weather patterns and climate change.”

Some recently-released quotes from a union survey included comments from a meteorologist who expressed concerns about publicly speaking about climate change and described it as a “career-limiting move.”

Leslie asked when Harper would “acknowledge that climate change is real and stop muzzling scientists.” But in response, Aglukkaq sidestepped the question and instead attacked the opposition party.

“That is absolutely ridiculous,” Aglukkaq told the Commons. “Unlike the other side, I have chosen not to play politics with this when it comes to protecting the environment. I regularly meet with Canadians across the country to speak to them about the priorities of our government, which are important to them as well. On the other hand, the opposition will continue to play politics with this issue.”

In an interview, Ted Hsu, the science and technology critic for the opposition Liberal party, criticized the government for allegedly muzzling its scientists, but said he was comfortable with some restrictions on meteorologists.

“I would not mind if meteorologists were told not to talk about climate science as long as climate scientists were allowed to talk about climate science,” said Hsu. “Because of cases of well-known climate deniers who are meteorologists in the United States, I’m sympathetic to the idea that climate scientists are the ones who should be asked for a more authoritative answer about whether a particular extreme weather event is more or less likely to happen with or without global warming.”

Internally, Environment Canada has observed an 80 per cent drop in media coverage of climate change issues in the country after it adopted new restrictive communications policies in 2007 that required scientists to seek permission from management prior to giving interviews about their research.

Both the NDP and Liberals have proposed to end what they describe as muzzling of scientists.

“I think I feel comfortable saying that if we (Liberals) were in government now, I would allow scientists to speak freely about their research and just completely change the communications policy,” Hsu said.

Hsu recently received a government response to written questions he submitted in Parliament asking multiple departments for statistics on interviews with scientists and records about their communications policies. But he said he was surprised that none of these departments claimed to have any documents explaining instructions given by their ministers.

“It’s very frustrating,” Hsu said. “You can’t really say the government is transparent when you don’t know what instructions the ministers gave to their departments. So how do I know if the minister is giving good directions or bad directions or whether the department is doing a good job or bad job? … It seems wrong to me that I can’t know what the minister did or what instructions the minister gave.”

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.

“Our plan is working, thanks to our Prime Minister’s strong leadership on the environment,” states a new sleek ‘fact sheet’ released to the public after the federal government announced a new National Conservation Plan (NCP) last week.

The Harper government is committing five years and $252 million to the NCP, an initiative they say is aimed at conserving land, restoring ecosystems, and connecting Canadians to nature.

"Our Government is committed to working closely with Canadians so that together we can provide effective stewardship of Canada’s rich natural heritage for present and future generations," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a statement.

"The National Conservation Plan will help ensure the sustainability of our nation’s greatest resources, contribute to our country’s long-term prosperity and further position Canada as a world leader in conservation. It will also help ensure that Canadian families and visitors can enjoy the beauty of our country from coast to coast to coast for years to come," he said.

The rollout of the conservation plan has been accompanied by a substantial public outreach campaign, including an email from Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq encouraging Canadians to get their own “free fact sheet” to “ learn more about what PM Harper and the Conservative Government have done to protect our natural heritage.”

Short on substance

The ‘fact sheet’ claims Canada is a “world leader in clean energy production,” investing “more than $10 billion in green infrastructure, energy efficiency, and clean energy since 2006.”

According to Simon Dyer, regional director for Alberta and the North at the Pembina Institute, "Canada's investments in clean energy per capita are significantly less than U.S. or Europe." A significant amount of money is being directed to carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects, while the federal government has cancelled its Ecoenergy programs for efficiency and renewable energy, "which is a big gap," Dyer told DeSmog Canada.

And although the Ontario government has successfully phased out coal, Dyer said federal rules allow some Canadian coal plants to operate as late as 2062.

Prominent conservation groups are calling the government's plan into question, saying a more clear and rigorous strategy needs to be put into place. The federal government also needs to lay out how action on climate change will factor into the conservation picture, they say.

“Preserving land…without reducing greenhouse gas emissions is public relations, not conservation,” John Bennett from the Sierra Club said.

“We do need to preserve much more of nature but it is more complicated [than just] putting up a no trespassing sign.”

Alison Woodley, national director for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) Parks Program, told DeSmog Canada there is “potential for progress” in the announcement of the NCP but how the plan will be implemented remains unclear.

“It is not clear how this announcement will enable Canada to meet its international commitment to protect at least 17 per cent of our land and 10 per cent of our oceans by 2020,” Woodley said. Canada currently protects 10 per cent of land and 1 per cent of Canadian waters.

“We desperately need a nation-wide, science-based plan to get there, and the federal government should be leading this effort. Yet this was not part of the announcement,” Woodley told DeSmog Canada.

Climate change is making nature conservation a more urgent issue, according to Woodley.

“We need to ensure that much more of our lands and waters are protected, and that these areas are connected together so wildlife can move through the land and seascape as they adapt to changing conditions,” she said.  

The conservation of Canada’s park land has an important role to play in addressing climate change.

“Conserving natural areas can also help with efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, by storing carbon and by buffering against extreme weather events like flooding and storm surges,” Woodley added.

Éric Hérbert-Daly, national executive director of CPAWS wrote it was “shocking” to see the government’s plan offered no support for National Parks. As DeSmog Canada recently reported, federal funding cuts to Parks Canada has left many of Canada’s national parks unattended, with little to no research being conducted on an ongoing basis, even in regions harshly affected by the pine beetle epidemic.

“National parks are the federal government’s flagship conservation tools that are beloved by Canadians,” Hérbert-Daly said. “A national conservation plan that ignores our national parks has an enormous gap.”

The Conservative government's 'fact sheet.'

A new 'environmental' brand for the Harper Government?

In 2012 Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, an internationally binding climate change agreement, and made major cuts to science programs and research at both Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The funding cuts, coupled with strict communications procedures that prevent scientists from speaking freely with the media, have been cited as evidence of the Harper government’s “war on science.”

As Andy Radia from Yahoo Canada News points out, the Conservative’s rebranding exercise makes sense, given how poorly the party is perceived when it comes to environmental policy.

As a potential sign of more aggressive environmental campaigning to come, Radia points to a much-publicized speech Conservative thought-leader Preston Manning gave at the Manning Conference earlier this year:

While conservatives are generally seen to be competent on the economy, we continue to be seen as defensive and weak on the environment. In our Quebec poll, for example, perceived weakness on the environment was given as the number one policy reason for not supporting conservative parties.

Of course, what is most exasperating is that this need not be so. I know, you know, all kinds of people – especially ranchers, farmers, loggers, fishers, hunters, hikers, out-door people who either work or recreate in close communion with their physical environment – who are fiscal or social conservatives and environmental conservationists all at the same time. They hold all of these commitments and positions in common.

And this shouldn’t surprise us. Conservative and conservation come from the same root. Living within our means financially is easily and logically extendable to living within our means ecologically. And market mechanisms, which conservatives prefer to excessive regulation by governments, can just as readily be harnessed to environmental protection as to economic development.

But this perceived weakness on the environmental front needs to be more seriously addressed if conservative support is to be broadened, especially among the young. The philosophical and policy means for doing so exist in the growing body of literature and activity on the “green conservative” theme. And the appointment of Leona Aglukkaq as Canada’s Environment Minister is a most positive and welcome step as the Arctic, with which she is intimately identified, is seen by many Canadians as the place to make a “fresh start on the environment” and the better management of the environment/economy interface.

Ultimately, says Woodley, the government has to make good on the promise to conserve Canada’s green spaces.

“The announcement was just that, an announcement – with a list of investments, but no details about what they are meant to achieve,” she said. 

“It is not clear if they are going to now create a plan with clear goals and objectives and strategies to achieve these. We hope there is something more comprehensive coming, but the announcement didn't mention anything along those lines.”

Image Credit: Prime Minister Stephen Harper announcing the NCP. Photo courtesy of the Prime Minister's website.

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 proposed public statement that acknowledged humans were “mostly responsible for climate change” and that Environment Canada took this threat “seriously” was dropped by environment minister Leona Aglukkaq in favour of a watered-down partisan message that made no meaningful mention of the issue of climate change, new documents show. The proposed statement, drafted for the release of the 2013 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was released to Postmedia’s Mike De Souza through access to information legislation.

The internal documents were a part of a larger Environment Canada communications strategy designed to raise awareness about climate change and the link between fossil fuel consumption and global warming, reports De Souza.

The statement, prepared for minister Aglukkaq, recommended she state Canada “takes climate change seriously, and recognizes the scientific findings that conclude that human activities are mostly responsible for this change.”

The 2013 IPCC report, the most definitive piece of scientific literature on climate change, concluded it was “extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming” in recent decades.

Upon release of that report, minister Aglukkaq read a new statement, using the opportunity to praise the Harper government for its action on climate change and condemn opposition parties for their policies.

“Unlike the previous Liberal government, under whose watch greenhouse gas emissions rose by almost 30 per cent, or the NDP, who want a $21 billion carbon tax, our Government is actually reducing greenhouse gases and standing up for Canadian jobs,” she said in a statement delivered September 27.

The two statements can be compared below:

Recommended statement:

On behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to thank and congratulate the Canadian scientists who worked on the Working Group I contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report.

The Government of Canada takes climate change seriously, and recognizes the scientific findings that conclude that human activities are mostly responsible for this change. As an Arctic nation, Canada profoundly understands the impacts of climate change and is taking action on many fronts to address climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change continues to provide policy-relevant scientific assessments that clearly document the significant changes underway in the climate system. Today’s report builds on the tradition of excellence that earned the IPCC the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

Ten Canadian scientists had lead roles and many others made contributions to this report. Their scientific expertise continues to improve our collective understanding of climate change.

This work once again showcases the world-class science that exists in the Government of Canada and throughout the Canadian scientific community. The Government of Canada takes great pride in the work of all its scientists, who contribute every day to the assessment and advancement of science, both at home and on the international stage.

Actual statement:

As an Arctic nation, Canada has been playing a leadership role in addressing climate change. Our Government has already taken action on two of the largest sources of emissions – namely transportation and coal-fired electricity. In fact, we were the first country to phase out traditional coal power generation. These actions are benefiting Canadians and their families.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, under whose watch greenhouse gas emissions rose by almost 30 per cent, or the NDP, who want a $21 billion carbon tax, our Government is actually reducing greenhouse gases and standing up for Canadian jobs.

The Government of Canada takes great pride in the work of all its scientists, who contribute every day to the assessment and advancement of science, both at home and on the international stage.

“It was a 100 per cent partisan attack document,” NDP environment critic Megan Leslie told Postmedia. “It didn’t talk about the issue of climate change.”

“The minister and the government have blinders on because it doesn’t suit their communications strategy,” Liberal environment critic John McKay told Postmedia. “I don’t think she actually runs the department. I think it is run out of the PMO.”

Green Party leader Elizabeth May said the statement had been “watered down politically.”

“It’s further indication that Stephen Harper and his cabinet simply don’t understand that the climate is a huge threat to Canada, to our kids, to our economy and we’re running out of time,” she said. “Stephen Harper doesn’t want to actually do anything that by his (opinion) impedes the oil and gas industry.”

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.