After several months of delay, the federal and Alberta governments have finally followed through on their promise to release tar sands monitoring data to the general public. The Canada-Alberta Oil Sands Environmental Monitoring Information Portal came online Monday in time for Earth Day.

The portal aims to provide information on air, water, wildlife contaminants and biodiversity. It includes an interactive map with links to monitoring activities all over the province. The site will use satellite measurements to estimate emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide but it will not provide data on carbon emissions. 

Environment Minister Peter Kent touted the website’s launch as evidence that Canada is contributing and doing its part to protect the environment.

“With this portal, our respective governments are actively encouraging informed discussions and analysis on the impacts of oil sands development based on high-quality scientific information.”

While University of Alberta ecologist David Schindler told CBC news he was on board with the move, Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaign coordinator for Greenpeace Canada was less optimistic. "We're a little skeptical, as the system won't be fully implemented until 2015 and yet the two levels of government continue to approve new projects in the absence of reliable data on cumulative impacts," he said.

Indeed, many of the sections promise data that “will be released in the coming months.” 

“The section on biodiversity is focused on more monitoring to determine the problems, when it is already well known what the problems are,” Helene Walsh, boreal program director at the Northern Alberta chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) said via e-mail.

She pointed to a 2009 report that found without “immediate and sufficient action” the boreal caribou would be gone from the landscape within two to four decades.

“Except for recent protection of small portions of two caribou ranges, nothing has been done to meet the needs of caribou in the oil sands region,” she said. “This is an excellent example of monitoring that has been well done, but then no action taken to deal with the results because any meaningful action would require a restriction on oil sands development to protect and/or restore habitat.  Alberta does not ‘balance’ economic with environmental as they would like people to believe.”

She says that as petroleum production in Alberta has risen there has been a corresponding decrease in the caribou population. 

Edmonton-based Greenpeace climate campaigner Mike Hudema told the Vancouver Observer that, although “good data is better than bad data, there is still little plan to act on the data.”

“There is no indication of when, or even if, this will become a truly independent monitoring regime as recommended by the federal government’s scientific panel," he said.

CBC newsreaders also expressed misgivings as to whether the information the portal presents is being accurately interpreted. Statements such as the following from the site’s introduction show a notably reassuring tone in its assessments:

“To date, the results of environmental monitoring show that low levels of oil sands development-related contaminants are present in both air and water. In almost all water and air samples, levels of oil sands development-related contaminants are below relevant environmental guidelines, and levels decrease with increasing distance from oil sands development. Overall, the levels of contaminants in water and in air are not a cause for concern.”

Scientists and activists have consistently identified the Alberta and federal governments’ tendency toward framing facts in misleading terms.

“Anyone with any common sense knows you can't take two years of good monitoring and forecast to find out what changes there have been in the environment,” Schindler recently said of Premier Alison Redford’s attempts to advertise her province’s environmental record during a trip to Washington.

Although there is no direct author cited in the analysis sections, the portal assures that, “data being released has been subject to quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures, and the information has been approved by the Assistant Deputy Minister of Science and Technology, Environment Canada and the Assistant Deputy Minister of Science and Monitoring, Alberta Environment and Water.”

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

The Harper government knew in early 2012 that proposed regulatory reforms tabled in the contentious Omnibus Budget Bill C-38 would be "very controversial." As a result a parliamentary secretary to the minister of Environment Canada was directed to seek the cooperation of a major tar sands developer, Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (CNRL), regarding the proposed changes, saying "the reforms, when introduced, may be very controversial. I hope we can count on your support."

The comments, revealed in secret briefing notes released to Postmedia News through Access to Information requests, were prepared for Environment Minister Peter Kent's parliamentary secretary, Michelle Rempel. The secret documents show behind-the-scenes coordination between industry and Environment Canada occurred well before the federal government overhauled environmental laws last summer or even proposed the changes in Parliament.

Similar communication did not occur with First Nations or environmental groups.

The briefing notes provided Rempel with specific talking points intended to highlight the role industry interests played in the overhaul of environmental protections.

"Resource development is certainly among the major industrial sectors that are top-of-mind as we consider the modernization of our regulatory system," the notes read.

Rempel, who met with Bill Clapperton, CNRL vice-president of stakeholder and environmental affairs on February 2, 2012, suggested the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers – Canada's most powerful oil and gas industry lobby group – had also "pointed to potential areas for reform."

The documents are part of a larger body of internal documents that highlight the federal government's close liaison with the oil and gas industry.

In September 2012, Postmedia's Mike De Souza reported on internal briefing notes prepared for Minister Kent before a meeting with the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association. They showed the federal government's promise that new legislation would lighten regulation of industrial projects.

"Pipeline development is certainly among the major industrial sectors that are top-of-mind as we consider the modernization of our regulatory system," the documents stated.

An additional internal document from late 2011 and only released earlier this month, showed numerous oil and gas industry groups requested changes to existing environmental laws that they deemed not beneficial to industrial activities. The Harper government granted these requests only months later with the radical overhaul of environmental protections through Bill C-38.

The federal government appears to have pushed through these massive environmental reforms – eliminating some 3000 environmental reviews in tandem – despite the caution of Environment Canada officials who told Kent such reforms could "weaken public trust and credibility in the environmental assessment process…especially when applied to major projects such as oil sands developments or large mines."

Those comments, originating from Environment Canada, came from internal briefing notes, prepared for Minister Kent, and released through Access to Information legislation to researcher Ken Rubin.

The notes continued, "it is in the interest of all parties that the federal and provincial governments fully meet their respective mandates for the protection of the environment in relation to oil sands development," adding anything less could "undermine the government of Canada's ability to fulfill its responsibilities," reported De Souza.

These internal documents, now released, demonstrate the extent to which Harper's budget legislation appears to be designed with industry interests in mind, or rather, "top-of-mind."

Image Credit: Emissions from tar sands refineries by Kris Krug. Used with permission.

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 most urgent environmental threat to Canadians isn’t climate change, the declining health of our oceans, or the extinction of species. It’s the pollution filling our nation’s public square.

The public square – the forum for free debate that we depend on in a democracy – is being choked by misinformation, denial and bitter adversarial rhetoric. It is causing the Canadian public to turn away in despair, creating an epidemic of mistrust and what’s worse, disinterest.

Instead of open and healthy debate, dysfunctional public conversations have become the norm, preventing us from confronting the reality of our destructive impact on the planet. We seem unable or unwilling to weigh facts honestly, disagree constructively and deliberate collectively.

DeSmog Canada will wade through the PR pollution that is preventing us from having sensible public conversations about critical issues around the environment, social justice and the economy.

Here, we will work to clear the air and explore solutions for cleaning up Canada's polluted public square. We will examine why Canadians often feel powerless to demand that government and industry focus on what’s really important: developing more effective public policies and transitioning to a healthier, more sustainable economy.

To begin, we need to call out some of the biggest polluters of the public square. These are the harmful PR strategies employed by government and industry aimed to dissuade the public from discussing legitimate concerns.

One of the most blatant examples is the “Ethical Oil” campaign being used by the oil and gas industry to justify unfettered expansion of Alberta’s oil sands. It’s a deceptive campaign that intentionally aims to subvert public awareness and confuse debate by blurring the issues.

Consider the phrase Ethical Oil – a presumptuous and oversimplified pairing of words that leaves little room for the many ethical questions and concerns of Canadians. The Ethical Oil Institute goes so far as to call its cause the “fair trade choice in oil”. The suggestion is that Canadians and the developing world need to support production in the oil sands to squeeze out the markets of “politically oppressive and environmentally reckless regimes” in places such as the Middle East. Unfortunately, not everyone recognizes this type of deceptive messaging, or the damage it can cause.

It is a nasty PR tactic designed not to persuade, but to distract the public through misdirection and misinformation. In fact, Ethical Oil’s strategy is more cynical than most. It mislabels itself to deliberately confuse people about their interests. Ethical Oil then demonizes its opponents to create a culture of mistrust. Citizens become so confused by the cacophony of conflicting information and rhetoric that their reaction is to simply tune out.

In the past, this style of propaganda has been resorted to by industries desperate to escape accountability for their irresponsible business practices. Recall the tobacco industry’s extensive campaign to cast doubt on the health threats of its products, or the oxymoron that is the American coal industry’s “clean coal” marketing campaign. Instead of making claims with substance, the goal of this type of PR spin is to polarize public opinion and discourage critical thinking.

Similar tactics have been used by the Harper Government to stifle debate around the expansion of the oil sands and risky projects such as the Northern Gateway Pipeline. Consider Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver’s now infamous statement about “environmental and other radical groups” that questioned the social and environmental impact of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. Environment Minister Peter Kent even suggested charitable groups in Canada are “laundering” foreign funds, yet admitted later he had no evidence to back up his accusations.

The government continues to suggest that Canadian groups that speak out against the environmental impacts of resource development are trying to undermine Canada’s sovereignty and economic growth. Again, it’s an attempt to force the public to take sides on an issue where there is no black and white.

If all of this sounds melodramatic, that’s the point. Canadians who hear elected officials talking about money laundering and environmental radicals are likely to treat the information as yet another form of entertainment, then promptly ignore it. This serves to silence Canadians who already mistrust business and government, believing the system is rigged and that there is little they can do to make a difference. This attitude fuels public apathy, playing into the PR strategy to drown out dissent and smother public discourse.

Our goal is to put an end to this practice by exposing it for what it really is: a PR bullying campaign. At the same time, we want to encourage and build the kind of healthy public discourse that is needed to foster a true democracy. After all, democracy is dependent on a citizenry that is engaged and capable of sorting some approximate version of the truth amidst a sea of opinion in the public square.

We invite you to be part of this conversation. Share your thoughts here and feel free to share this and other DeSmog Canada content on social media and other channels. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Together, we can clean up the public square and encourage all citizens to pursue their right to take part in decision-making processes that will have a lasting impact on their health, community and the economy for decades to come.

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.

“We are not muzzling scientists.” – Peter Kent, Canada’s Environment Minister.

I shook my head reading Margaret Munro’s Weekend Vancouver Sun article on freedom of information documents that caught Canada’s Minister of the Environment lying about muzzling scientists.

Kent has repeatedly denied that the government is muzzling scientists. But according to the documents, Kent’s office clearly muzzled Environment Canada researcher David Tarasick, preventing him from speaking to a number of media outlets about an unprecedented hole that appeared in the ozone layer above the Arctic in 2011.

According to Munro, “the documents also say Kent’s office and the Privy Council Office, which reports to the prime minister, decide when and if Environment Canada scientists are allowed to brief the media about anything from wildlife to water quality."

Why would the Minister of the Environment block public discussion of scientific work that may be important for the health and safety of Canadians and their environment?

Shouldn’t a minister of the environment be working to inform the public about environmental threats, encouraging the free flow of scientific knowledge and inviting informed citizens to participate in the decision-making process?

OK, it may be a bit naïve expecting politicians to tell the truth. Most Canadians have an idea who benefits when scientists are muzzled and the free exchange of scientific knowledge about environmental threats is constrained.

The real question, then, is why Minister Kent seems so comfortable lying to Canadians about muzzling scientists when he knows that we know what he is doing?

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.