Environmental issues are top-of-mind for more Canadians than ever before in this year’s election. It’s an important issue to Canadians in every riding — and the parties know it.

In a Forum Research poll in July, 26 per cent of respondents said the environment was their top concern, leapfrogging the economy as the number one issue. In the 2015 election, the economy was by far the most important issue to voters. 

It’s also only the second election in which all four major parties openly accept the reality of climate change as something that demands our attention. Strategies vary on how to reduce carbon emissions, but at least federally, it’s no longer a question of debating the science. 

Climate change policy isn’t the only way the parties are flexing their environmental bona fides, however: conservation, transportation, and energy are on the platforms, as are lower impact but still high-profile issues like plastic pollution and green jobs. 

It all makes for a lot of platforms to scroll through. So we bring you a rundown on what environmental policies the federal parties are offering Canadians in the 2019 election.

A raging wildfire consumes the forest next to Highway 63 south of Fort McMurray. Photo: Chris Schwarz / Government of Alberta

Climate Change

Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet; its northern reaches are warming even more quickly. That has consequences for polar bears, sure, but it’s also a threat to northern roads and communities. It’s exacerbating wildfires and a biodiversity crisis. So it’s not surprising to see the issue being taken on by the federal parties. 

Justin Trudeau won on a platform in 2015 that heavily referenced climate change while promising specific solutions to that and other environmental problems. Andrew Scheer appears eager to shed the Conservative party’s reputation for environmental backwardness, while sticking to its expected business-friendly approach. Elizabeth May’s Greens are advocating for radical overhauls to the economy. And the NDP under Jagmeet Singh is advocating for more ambitious measures than the Liberals while maintaining many of the broad strokes of their plan. 

(Note: we’ve decided that Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada, not to be confused with the other Maxime Bernier’s Rhinoceros Party, won’t be evaluated in this story. That might be because they are devout climate deniers and therefore irrelevant to this conversation, or it could just be because they have never cracked five per cent in the polls. We’ll keep you updated if they come up with any innovative environmental policy…)

—————

The Liberals so far have not released their platform in full but have instead spent the summer touting and reinforcing the 50 or so specific actions they’ve taken since 2015. Chief among those is the carbon tax, which kicked in in April at $20 a tonne and will rise each year up to $50 a tonne by 2022. (Update: The Liberal Party of Canada released their climate plan on September 24).

United Nations economists say that to be effective, a carbon price will have to come much higher by 2030 — to at least $135 per tonne. The Liberals have no such plan. The carbon tax has also been criticized for being overly cautious with respect to industry, allowing for too much pollution in the name of not harming competitiveness (I wrote a whole separate explainer about that, here).

The Liberals have done other work to curb emissions, however. They’ve set a target of 30 per cent of light-duty vehicles being electric by 2030, and brought in a new fuel standard to limit the carbon content in fuels used in transportation, heating and industry. 

They’ve invested billions in public transit in order to reduce the carbon footprint of transportation, but appear to have abandoned a promise to “rapidly expand” the federal fleet of electric vehicles. In their last budget, they brought in a $5,000 subsidy for new electric vehicle purchases.

The Conservatives have come late to the climate party, but they have shown up at last. The title of Andrew Scheer’s environment and climate platform, “A Real Plan,” seems to be intended as a dig at the Liberals but comes across as a marvellous self-own. Regardless, the plan is indeed real and acknowledges the reality of man-made climate change in its third paragraph. 

The party has said it supports the Paris Accord, but stopped short of committing to meeting Canada’s targets.

In contrast to the carbon tax, which the Conservatives have long branded as a “tax grab” and which they plan to repeal, the Conservatives’ climate plan is intended to be consumer-friendly, depending on new technology rather than a reduction in consumption or expensive overhauls. It would require big polluters to pay into an investment fund that would then be spent on green tech. However, it’s not clear exactly how that investment would actually meet the planned reductions.

The Conservatives do not mention transit in their climate plan, but do promise to “provide regulatory support” for an LNG facility on the West Coast that they say could lower the emissions of marine transportation. They also say they will work on developing electric vehicle technology, but make no promises on that front.

A big part of the Conservatives’ plan is to help other countries lower their own emissions, which they argue can be done for cheaper in developing countries, where more emissions-intensive industries like coal-fired power plants are more common. The Conservatives have promised to scrap the Liberals’ fuel standard. The party is also pushing capture and storage, which has been developed with some success in Saskatchewan and Alberta but not rolled out yet in any large-scale way.

The Green Party has presented the most radical plan for climate change of any party. It is symbolically heavy on urgency — for instance, establishing a non-partisan “survival cabinet” that would have the same grave mandate as a wartime cabinet — and includes the most ambitious measures to cut emissions seen yet on the federal level. The party proposes doubling Canada’s emissions reduction targets, and would raise the carbon tax as high as the United Nations says it needs to be, to $130 a tonne by 2030.

The Greens promise to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, ban fracking and oil imports and eliminate coal and natural gas by 2030. The latter has been criticized, along with their plan to retrofit every building in Canada to be carbon neutral, as not feasible within that timeline. Currently fossil fuels make up 20 per cent of Canada’s electricity generation, with huge regional disparities, and vacating every home in the country for retrofits would entail a scale of displacement without precedent in Canada. (Party leader Elizabeth May likened the retrofits to a WWII-level challenge but it’s also a major part of the Greens’ energy strategy — see below.)

The Greens are also planning mitigation measures, to “prepare for those levels of climate crisis we can no longer avoid,” according to the party’s platform. Those include fortifying dykes and dams against flooding, buying water bombers and assisting those who work in sectors that will be first affected by climate change. 

The Greens are the only party so far to mention rail, which they say would get new investment. The Green Party would require that all new cars sold in Canada be electric by 2030. They would increase bus service to rural areas, purchase electric buses, make employer-provided bus passes tax free and add to low-emissions transportation in cities such as bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure. The party would also oppose expansion of infrastructure that enables urban sprawl.

The New Democratic Party plans to maintain the carbon price set out by the Liberals until 2022, with a few tweaks. The party would remove the additional exemptions the Liberals added to their carbon price for heavy polluters, making them work harder to remain competitive internationally. Rebates on the carbon tax would be changed; rather than being sent out to all Canadians, the rebates would no longer be sent to the wealthiest.

The NDP also promises a Canadian Climate Bank, which would provide $3 billion for low-carbon innovation. Low-interest loans would be offered for renovations, on a longer timeline than the Greens, with plans to have all housing retrofitted by 2050.

On transportation, the NDP says it will increase funding, particularly to low-emissions transit projects. It would maintain the $5,000 incentive for electric vehicle purchases while eliminating federal sales tax on them. For electric vehicles made in Canada, the NDP says it would eventually raise that incentive to $15,000. It expands on the Liberals’ seemingly broken promise to increase the federal fleet of electric vehicles, saying all government vehicles, which includes things like Canada Post trucks, will all be electric by 2025.

Site C dam construction along the Peace River, B.C., in the summer of 2018. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

Energy

Energy is the root of the climate crisis: from coal-fired electrical plants to gasoline-driven cars to bunker oil-burning ships, Canadians pump a lot of carbon into the air. But our energy system causes other problems too, like the deterioration of air quality and pollution of waterways, oil spills on land and sea, and the destruction of land for hydroelectricity.

Some of the most heated political battles in recent memory in Canada are based on energy. The Trans Mountain pipeline has pitted First Nations, the federal government, two provincial governments as well as municipalities against one another, and has divided public opinion. Likewise for the now-defunct Energy East and Northern Gateway projects. And it’s not just fossil fuels: the Site C dam is an ongoing saga that is tearing apart northern B.C. (if you’re not up to date, seriously, check out the award-winning reporting by The Narwhal’s Sarah Cox on this. It’s the best around.)

Given these struggles, the parties all have their own promises to reform Canada’s energy grid — or, in the case of the Conservatives, return it to the way it was. 

—————

The NDP has set a target of powering Canada with zero-carbon electricity by 2050. The interim goal is “net carbon-free electricity” by 2030. So what’s the difference there? Net carbon-free usually refers to electricity generation that includes carbon offsets (think carbon capture, planting trees or subsidizing clean energy) — whereas zero-carbon energy would mean no carbon is produced during generation. Hope that helps.

The party would abandon the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which the Liberals bought in as-is condition for $4.5 billion but which will eventually cost nearly double that to build. In the same vein, the party would stop fossil fuel subsidies, which, Environmental Defence estimates, total $3.3 billion a year. 

A final, major element of the NDP energy platform is centred around manufacturing: building components for green energy in Canada, building an interconnected smart energy grid and developing locally-owned energy projects.

The Green Party would likewise eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, and go further by divesting from fossil fuels at the federal level — an example they hope other jurisdictions would follow. The Greens would also abandon Trans Mountain, along with all other pipeline expansion, ban oil imports and support the existing tanker ban on the north coast of B.C.

The Greens oppose nuclear energy, saying it’s too costly and too risky. They plan to develop a national electricity grid plan, and transition the current electrical grid to a more efficient system. The party wants wind to make up 20 per cent of national electricity production by 2025 — a fourfold increase — as well as ramping up geothermal and solar to each bring 25 new gigawatts of electricity online. The ban on oil imports the party has suggested would switch Canada’s oil supply to one entirely dependent on Alberta, which is in line with what the Conservatives have promised for 2030.

Its boldest claim is that through retrofits and efficiency improvements, “Canada could easily reduce energy demand by 50 per cent.” 

The Greens see demand for oil and gas declining, and its policies would accelerate that decline. To soften the blow to workers in the oil and gas industry, the Greens would bring in a retraining program to teach them how to work in renewables — for example, drilling wells for geothermal.

The Liberal Party, as mentioned, hasn’t released their platform. We’ll have to wait and see what they propose to do about energy next, but so far it’s been a mix of buying a pipeline, powering a natural gas production and transportation boom with “clean” energy, and not developing an energy strategy. 

In 2017 the government introduced legislation to ban oil tankers off the north coast of B.C.

In January Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced federal support for Canada’s first geothermal electrical plant, in Saskatchewan.

The Conservatives propose, well, the opposite of whatever Trudeau has proposed. They would undo the tanker ban and repeal the Liberals’ Bill C-69. That controversial bill brought in new requirements for environmental assessments of major projects but is highly unpopular with certain industries, which have lobbied extensively to get rid of it.

Also on the topic of regulatory burden, the Conservatives would provide “certainty on approval timelines and schedules,” and “end foreign-funded interference in regulatory hearings.” It’s unclear if that would include silencing oil and gas companies that are foreign-owned.

Expect more opposition when the Liberal platform is out.

Mount Edziza Provincial Park, B.C. Photo: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

Land, water, wildlife and ocean conservation

The balance of protecting wildlife and its habitat from human incursion while also allowing for economic activity is a delicate one. More often than not, the needle has gone toward development in Canada, to the detriment of species at risk like Southern Resident Killer Whales, most caribou herds, as well as plant species like the whitebark pine.

The Trudeau government has made significant progress toward meeting its so-called Aichi Biodiversity targets: it pledged to protect 17 per cent of terrestrial area and inland waters, and 10 per cent of its oceans, by 2020. A flurry of big new protected areas has moved that along. But meanwhile it has continued to advance some projects, like the Trans Mountain pipeline and a new road to the Arctic coast, that would interfere with sensitive habitat.

—————

The Conservatives included in their plan “a comprehensive update of Canada’s strategy to protect our fisheries, forests, agricultural lands, [and] tourist areas.” That would include a focus on invasive species, which can threaten native ecosystems, and controlling pests “that

pose a substantial threat to forest and aquatic health,” as well as conducting a $15 million inventory of wetlands.

As during the Harper years, the language in the Conservative plan favours species and habitats of economic importance over a more holistic approach. It promises to review how land is set aside for protection, and whether communities have enough input.

The Conservatives continue to support the Aichi targets (that calls, among other things, for 17 per cent of terrestrial areas and inland water and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas to be conserved by 2020), which were first agreed to by the Harper government. They also supported the passage of a Liberal fisheries bill that restored habitat protections gutted by the Harper government, with minor revisions. 

The centrepiece of the NDP conservation plan is to enshrine the right to a healthy environment in law through what they’re calling the Environmental Bill of Rights. It will guarantee the right to clean land, air and water, and bring in a national freshwater strategy.

They are also upping the ante on land protection: whereas the Aichi targets only extend up to 2020, the NDP wants to accelerate the protection of land and protect 30 per cent of land, freshwater and oceans by 2030. That’s nearly double the land and freshwater, and triple the amount of ocean protection that the current targets call for.

The NDP promises to use “all the tools available” under the Species At Risk Act, though not to make any changes to it. They say they will work with provinces and territories to “protect waterways under international agreements,” presumably referring to rivers like the trans-border Elk River, contaminated on the Canadian side by selenium from coal mining.

Part of the Greens’ conservation plan focuses on restoring ecosystems that have been damaged already — they would conduct an inventory of contaminated water bodies and groundwater, and work on figuring out how to clean them up, while empowering their own departments and agencies to restore aquatic ecosystems. 

The Greens would also increase funding to Parks Canada and accelerate the creation of new marine protected areas and parks, with a $500 million “completion budget” intended to have the entire parks system in place by 2030. They would also end trophy hunting across Canada, while supporting other types of hunting such as Indigenous subsistence hunting and hunts of other non-threatened species.

Selection of Species at Risk would no longer be subject to cabinet but rather by the recommendation of scientists, increase funding for endangered species, and increase penalties for killing them.

Photo: Taylor Roades / The Narwhal

Extras

Each party has taken up their own causes that are related to the environment but that don’t have direct bearing on any one of the topics above. We’ve reported on some of these big issues, from environmental law to corporate accountability to ocean plastics, but expect to hear more of these sexy, sexy issues arise throughout the election.

Among the Liberal Party’s side-projects has been plastics: a plan to start banning single-use plastics starting around 2021, committing $100 million to reducing plastic waste in developing countries, and banning microbeads in cosmetics and other products. 

The NDP wants to intensify the Liberals’ approach to plastics, by banning single-use plastics by 2022. They also want to provide training and re-training for people affected by climate action and encourage “local food hubs” while reducing food waste and protecting pollinator health.

The Conservatives, sticking to their push for private solutions to environmental issues, want to issue a “green patent credit” for eco-friendly technologies. They would modernize air quality regulations. They would also re-establish a policy advisory panel made up of hunters, fishers and conservation groups.

The Greens have a plan to bring in a youth-driven “Community and Environment Service Corps,” which would create 160,000 minimum wage jobs for young people to work in climate mitigation, environmental rehabilitation, and other similar projects across the country. They would also develop laws to will allow non-Canadians to sue Canadian corporations over violations of “basic human, environmental, or labour rights in their own countries.” 

—————

So there you have it. The environment is a major part of this year’s election, and the parties are all going to be jockeying for your vote on this issue. Whether it’s the Conservatives’ industry-led approach, the Liberals’ record of restoring protections and establishing new protected areas, the New Democrats’ promises to take the Liberal plan ever further, or the Greens’ promises to make drastic changes, one of these strategies will have to win out. 

Watch for splashy new environmental announcements as the election goes on — and watch this space for analysis.

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 Government of Canada approved the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline Tuesday, six months after the Joint Review Panel recommended the pipeline be built subject to 209 conditions.

Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford said in a statement: “In December 2013, the Joint Review Panel found that construction and operation of the Northern Gateway Pipelines project is in the public interest, subject to 209 conditions being met by the proponent. After carefully reviewing the report, the Government accepts the independent Panel’s recommendation to impose 209 conditions on Northern Gateway Pipelines’ proposal.”

“Today constitutes another step in the process,” Rickford said, adding Enbridge committed to working with “aboriginal groups and local communities along the route.”

First Nations Reignite Opposition Across B.C.

First Nations are nearly unanimously opposed to the construction of the pipeline, however, and it is unclear how either Enbridge or the Harper government might address those concerns, steeped as they are within a constitutionally enshrined aboriginal rights framework.

In total, 130 First Nations have publicly rejected the project.

According to the Gitga’at Nation, the panel failed to legitimately consult First Nations during the review process, meaning the entire process did not meet the federal government’s legal duty to meaningfully consult aboriginal groups. How that conundrum can be remedied after the fact is anyone’s guess.

Upon announcement of the federal approval of the pipeline, a large group of First Nations, Councils and Assemblies launched a legal suit against the Government of Canada, saying “we will defend our territories whatever the costs may be.”

“This project, and the federal process to approve it, violated our right and our laws,” the groups stated in a press release. “We are uniting to defend our lands and waters of our respective territories. Our rights and laws compel us.” The groups include Gitxsan, Haisla, Heiltsuk, Tsleil-Waututh Nation, Wet'suwet'en First Nation, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations and Coastal First Nations among many others.

This Friday, the Gitga'at First Nation will string a colourful knit rope across the Douglas Channel, the export route of Northern Gateway tankers, in symbolic protest of the project.*

Legal Challenges Advance

In addition, the panel’s report was met with several legal challenges that addressed ongoing concerns with federal obligations to species at risk, such as caribou and the humpback whale (although, in what conservation groups saw as a brazen move, the federal government downgraded the status of the humpback whale).

The Environmental Law Centre (ELC) announced today it will file a suit challenging the pipeline’s approval on behalf of the Federation of B.C. Naturalists (B.C. Nature).

“Filing this lawsuit will ensure that the Federal Court of Appeal is able to hear and consider arguments relating to all of the various flaws and deficiencies associated with the Northern Gateway approval process,” Chris Tollefson, ELC executive director and B.C. Nature’s lawyer, said.

“We cannot stand by and allow Cabinet to approve this ill-conceived project on the basis of a JRP report that is so flawed and incomplete,” Kees Visser, President of B.C. Nature, said.

Majority of British Columbians May Have Final Say

British Columbians have also demonstrated on numerous occasions their majority opposition to the project. Most recently a Bloomberg-Nanos poll showed 67 per cent of British Columbians wanted the project either rejected or delayed for further review.

Yesterday at a press conference, the Dogwood Initiative, a democracy group in B.C., announced the project’s approval would be met with a citizen’s initiative – a province-wide vote that could oust the project by popular request. The Dogwood Initiative, along with several other environmental, First Nations, citizen and legal groups, will organize the vote, handing decision-making power once and for all to British Columbians.

The initiative, called “Let BC Vote,” already has 150,000 signatures.

The citizen’s initiative tool was successfully used in 2010 to oust the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) pushed through by the Liberal government.

When it comes to gaining the approval of British Columbia, some of Premier Christy Clark's five conditions have yet to be met, including securing B.C.'s 'fair share' of benefits from the project. But perhaps more significantly, in April, residents of Kitimat, the proposed terminus of the pipeline and start of the export tanker route, voted 'no' to the project in a local plebiscite, showing even those who stand to gain the most don't support Enbridge in its ambitions.

209 Conditions Perhaps Most Significant Obstacle

As DeSmog Canada previously reported, the 209 conditions outlined by the National Energy Board (NEB) might ultimately represent the largest obstacle to the pipeline’s construction.

Changes to the NEB Act in 2012 (in the passing of the infamous Omnibus Budget Bill C-38 which saw the elimination of several environmental laws) made project conditions legally-binding, meaning they cannot be discarded by government as happened with the Mackenzie Gas Project. Although cabinet still holds the power to supplement or alter conditions in certain circumstances.

The 209 conditions fall into three phases: pre-construction, construction and pre-operation, and ongoing operations. To fulfill the 209 conditions, Enbridge will have to demonstrate to the NEB that the full requirements are being met throughout all phases of the project.

DeSmog Canada’s Heather Libby deconstructed the conditions in a previous post, outlining conditions specific to watercourse crossings, animal habitat, marine spill prevention and cleanup and shipping agreements.

Without all of the considerable legal challenges and technical difficulties and political uncertainties surrounding the project, construction could begin as early as seven months from now.

But with the hellfire sure to break loose, this approval means next to nothing about the project’s potential for actually being built.

* Correction: This article originally stated the Heiltsuk were stringing a knit rope across the Douglas Channel.

Image Credit: Kolson Kiera-Dawn, Crystal Lameman and Melina Laboucan-Massimo at Convergence 2014. 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.

This article is part of DeSmog Canada's ongoing series "Science on the Chopping Block."

Last week, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a strong case for parents to accept scientific evidence about the effectiveness of vaccines.

“We do have scientists and medical professionals who do great work and verify this and I just think its a tragedy when people start to go off on their own theories and not listen to the scientific evidence,” he told the CBC in an exclusive interview.

“Don’t indulge your theories, think of your children and listen to the experts.”

Within his own government, scientists and professionals who do research and gather evidence, are urging the prime minister to take a second look at his own theories.

A major survey, conducted by Environics Research and sponsored by the labour union, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, collected dozens of quotes from scientists who believe the Harper government doesn’t know how to use evidence. They allege the government is muzzling them, interfering with their research and ignoring their findings – particularly when it comes to evidence that covers issues such as climate change and other impacts of unsustainable industrial development.[view:in_this_series=block_1]

Here’s a list of ten significant quotes from that survey:

Quote 10: The “Banana Republic”

“I am a surplused employee at DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). I will be leaving my position and the civil service soon. What has been done to environmental legislation and Regulatory Authority in Canada in the last year+ is CRIMINAL! This now also includes a complete lack of capacity and funding. The Public are being grossly misled by Gov’t as to the state of the environment, especially the aquatic ecosystems and likely future negative consequences. The face of DFO is now virtually gone from communities and especially in the North where all the development is occurring. We are becoming a ‘Banana Republic’ when it comes to environmental legislation and regulations. These ‘wholesale’ changes are being led by ideology and not cost savings or common sense. The list of threatened and endangered species continues to grow. Salmon stocks are struggling all along the west coast of NA (North America). The number of contaminated sites continues to grow and clean up efforts are tied up in politicized bureaucracy. We have tens of millions of dollars for The War of 1812 and Canada’s Action Plan but cannot even respond in a timely fashion to the Cohen Report (inquiry into the plight of salmon) that cost $26 million. Canada has also lost significant environmental and scientific credibility internationally b/c of the muzzling of scientists and inaction on climate change. Continually making decisions and policies based on politics and the economy only will continue to degrade the environment around us.”

Quote 9: “Systematic dismantling”

“In my 31 years with the federal public service, I’ve never seen such a systematic dismantling of science capacity. My only hope of ever seeing a scientifically viable and credible public service again is a change in government.”

Quote 8: “Set aside and ignored”

“Because of changes in regulations and shifts in departmental mandates, science disciplines aimed at environmental and human protection have been set aside and ignored, without taking the real risks into consideration (e.g. environmental assessment, toxicology research on freshwater systems, aircraft inspection, food inspection).”

Quote 7: Using funds to equip companies

“I am a researcher in AAFC (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada) and I have witnessed a strong research branch, which contributed immensely to Canada’s Agriculture and food sector getting dismantled under the guise of ‘transferring’ this activity to the private sector. The new research activities are narrow and serve short-term profit objectives. Funds are used to equip and run individual companies. These are business subsidies and not research programs benefitting all Canadians… I fear the public does not yet realize that within 10 years there will be no one acting in their interests.”

Quote 6: “Political interference”

“The current government’s positions have led to fundamental changes in environmental laws and regulations. Government scientists are as professional as ever but have to do their best in the current political context. Government interference is pervasive in our work, sometimes subtly (communications approval process, muzzling of the public, transparency towards the public) and sometimes very explicitly (changes to laws and regulations). Muzzling, lack of transparency, abandonment of Canadian environmental values for economic values at the expense of the environment, and political interference for economic purposes are the defining characteristics of the current government when it comes to the environment. It is harder to work in the environmental sciences under this government which is trying to do everything it can to avoid answering questions on the environment and serving as a world leader in environmental protection.”

Quote 5: “Orwellian”

“I am outraged by the Orwellian restriction of information under the current government… I am sure that I did not sign a confidentiality agreement designed to protect elected officials from minor embarrassment or surprise. If the public service is truly non-partisan, then our results should not be repressed to serve the interests of one political party over another. Furthermore, every time we have to ask permission to speak to the media, even if that permission is ultimately granted, it reduces the appearance of independence and transparency of government science.”

Quote 4: “Hate every day of my job”

“Despite what the scientists think, we are told what to say and that we have to put a positive spin on everything and to support economic development at all costs. Our role as both stewards and advisors has been silenced. We are tasked with work that we ethically do not agree with and must support. If we do not, they simply bring in project people who are non scientists who will write what senior management wants to hear. I am over worked, disrespected, undervalued, and I hate every day of my job where I used to love coming to work.”

Quote 3: “Minders”

“Up until the Harper govt., when the media called for an interview with me as a research scientist I simply gave the interview and wrote up a media report thereafter. Now managers decide if whoever gets the call is the appropriate contact for the specific topic; the process of waiting for approval is slow (days), and onerous (lots of email, phone calls) and involves minders, therefore I have given up doing media interviews bc it takes so much time from my work. I refer reporters to NGOs that might be involved. I believe other research scientists and biologists do the same based on conversations with them.”

Quote 2:

“Help”

Quote 1:

“I’m probably quitting. Harper wins.”

This article originally appeared on mikedesouza.com and is republished here with permission.

Image Credit: The Professional Institute of the Public Services of Canada report The Big Chill

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.

It was April, 2011 and Michael Ignatieff, then leader of Canada's opposition Liberal Party, was addressing an election rally in Sudbury, Ontario. “Why do we have to put up with this? Rise up! Rise up! … This goes beyond partisan politics! This goes beyond the Liberal Party! This is about our country! This is about our democracy! Rise up! Rise up!”

The scene, as penned by Paul Wells in his new book, "The Longer I'm Prime Minister," captures all the futility of battling the quiet juggernaut of Stephen Harper, possibly one of the most confounding prime ministers ever to inhabit the dull, grey landscape of Ottawa. Ignatieff led the Liberals to the party's biggest ever defeat that year while the Conservatives under Harper secured its first majority government.

It's easy to underestimate Harper, or resort to caricature as Wells notes in his book. It is obvious Harper is deeply conservative, loves the oil industry and all things oilsands. He doesn't seem to give a fig about the environment. Harper is all that, but in his book Wells, a veteran journalist, brings clarity to the 'why' of it all.

At first glance Harper looks very much the accountant he was trained to be: dull and lacking in passion. But don't be fooled, he has a determined, even subversive, vision for the country. Harper is bound to American-style conservatism, yet his battles are not fought in the open. He is no Ronald Reagan making the charming speech, cajoling Canadians along a brave new path. He instead moves with "arch-incrementalism," as a Harper aid tells us in the book.

The very title of the book, "The Longer I'm Prime Minister," refers to his plan to shift Canada to the right through small steps achieved over time and under the radar. In one of the most telling parts, Wells writes how Harper edits his own speeches to dull them down. "He works at removing memorable turns of phrase and identifiable ideas from his speeches," Wells writes. "He puts great effort into flattening the prose."

Have you ever known a politician who didn't love to draw attention and even exaggerate his policies? It's all part of the penetrating picture the author draws of Harper who first took power in 2006. "His goal was to ensure that Conservatives governed as frequently and as durably in the twenty-first century as Liberals had in the twentieth." He wants to "re-legitimize" the right and obliterate all traces of so-called leftish thinking. The plan includes tax cuts to de-fund the government and an all out effort to gut environmental protections to ensure rapid expansion of Canada's oilsands reserves.

So how did Harper, the man who helped unite Canada's two conservative parties — the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservatives — get to this point? While the book is a little skimpy on early biographical details, Wells pens an important chapter on Harper's major influences. Early on, Harper embraced a 1986 book called "The Patriot Game," which argued that Canada's successive Liberal governments were not only far to the left politically, but they also worked to serve central Canada, at the expense of the resource rich west. That, in part, goes a long way to explain Harper's drive to right the wrongs of the past and to free up the west's resource riches.

While Harper is often cast as the brilliant tactician, Wells illustrates how the prime minister could be his own worst enemy. After the Conservatives won in 2011 there was a period in which both opposition parties were in transition to new leaders, theoretically giving Harper even more room to manoeuvre. Alas, no. "The strange interlude during which Harper faced no real opposition had come to an end. And not a moment too soon. He had spent months slapping himself silly."

Many of the mistakes Harper makes in his current term revolve around the lack of concern for the environment. Since 2011, Harper has been aggressively promoting the Keystone XL pipeline, which aims to sharply increase the flow of oilsands oil to the big U.S. Gulf Coast refineries. Yet in his aggression, he has made mistakes, including not knowing how to deal with the more green-minded Obama administration.

"But his instincts, including a deep suspicion of anyone who challenged the resource-producing base of Alberta power, would often get in the way." Wells wrote. "Affecting a blasé attitude toward greenhouse gas emissions seemed a cost-free position to Harper. And then the bill came due." 

Harper was furious with Obama's decision to delay the approval of Keystone. But after seeing the writing on the wall, Harper realized he must take decisive action. Energy exports were the government’s new top strategic priority and Asia, specifically China, was now the most important region to target. Harper moved to open up markets at all costs, deciding that environmental reviews must be streamlined and roadblocks by aboriginal groups obliterated. Henceforth, environmentalists were now seen as opponents, even redrawn as traitors under the influence of American money.

"In a lot of ways, the angry orders Harper barked to his ministers after the Keystone delay weren't out of character. But they kicked off a long arc of activity, lasting until the spring of 2012, that he would come to regret." Whether Harper is still in regret mode is hard to say — the polls do show his hold on the electorate is slipping and he took a beating in the recent by-elections.

Wells, a veteran of Maclean's magazine, is a political journalist and not an environmentalist. His book is an engaging and sometimes hilarious take on what Harper is all about, digging into areas where other Canadian political writers fear to tread.

That is why the book is so useful: it's a lifting of the curtain on a government seeking to do things in secret rather than in the open. So, the Liberal leader's words at the beginning of this review are prescient: “Why do we have to put up with this?" Rise up, Canada — at least to read this book so you can decide for yourself whether one man's rigid adherence to his own philosophy, nursed by a regional grievance, will lay waste to our environmental heritage and to some of its least protected citizens.

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.