For more than two decades, Mark Jaccard has been penning “report cards” about Canada’s environmental track record. The results haven’t been pretty.

Jaccard, a veteran professor in Simon Fraser University’s School of Resource and Environmental Management, notes his annual evaluations were harnessed in the mid-2000s by Stephen Harper (then serving as federal opposition leader) as arguments for why the Conservatives deserved a shot at governing the country.

Those report cards were used as “a way of saying ‘look how incompetent the Liberals are, they haven’t done anything on climate, we’re not going to achieve Kyoto but let us get into power and we will set a new target in 2020 and implement regulations immediately to achieve that target,’” Jaccard recalls.

The Conservatives eventually formed a minority government in 2006 and became the majority government after the 2011 election.

Jaccard’s latest report card, released on October 6, concludes the Conservative Party has since “implemented virtually no policies that would materially reduce emissions” despite making significant emissions pledges for 2020 and 2050.

The five-page report notes the Conservative government has scored a “failing grade” for neglecting to introduce easily realizable policies in the sectors of transportation, electricity generation, construction and industry. Jaccard concludes the absence of such actions shows “they must have had no intention” of dealing with climate change.

“I know there are a lot of people in the Conservative Party — because they talk to me — who are disgusted that the current leader is so against implementing policies that would have no political cost to him but would reduce emissions,” he says. “I don’t know what [Harper’s] issue is, I don’t try to guess what’s in his mind, but he could do so much more.”

Harper’s Climate Policies Insignificant

Of course, the Conservative government has consistently told a different tale, pointing to regulations on coal-fired power plants built after 2030 and vehicle energy efficiency rules as instances of action on the climate change front.

However, Jaccard notes there are no new coal plants planned in the near future and that vehicle efficiency standards introduced under Prime Minister Harper don’t have nearly the same impact as regulations introduced in jurisdictions like California.

In short: the policies that Harper has introduced technically exist but are by no means enough to get Canada as close as it needs to be to emissions targets.

“Any academic will give you the same answer I did,” Jaccard says. “It’s got nothing to do with partisanship.”

In the report, Jaccard outlines three primary reasons why politicians like Harper don’t act on environmental policy: the absence of compulsory policies such as carbon taxes or sector-by-sector regulations, the global nature of climate change (requiring far larger jurisdictions such as China to cut emissions before seeing obvious impacts) and the absence of an independent monitoring service that provides feedback about progress.

It’s the latter factor that Jaccard has attempted to change with the annual “report card.”

Canada’s 2020 Climate Target Now Unachievable

Jaccard also notes his conclusions aren’t born from a particular animosity towards conservative parties, pointing out that Gordon Campbell, long-time premier of British Columbia, introduced very effective climate change policies such as the Clean Energy Act while sharing similar ideological stances as Harper.

Canada’s 2020 target is now unachievable due to the country’s laggard approach, Jaccard writes.

The 2050 target, requiring a 65 per cent cut in emissions, would require “an almost complete transformation” of the economic system. As a result, every day counts.

If the country opted for an economy-wide carbon tax — a move favoured by many economists — Jaccard estimates it would need to be introduced at $50/tonne, increasing to $150/tonne by 2020 (for reference, B.C. taxes carbon at $30/tonne).

But for Jaccard, the technicalities of a future transition — whether it’s a carbon tax, cap-and-trade or sector-by-sector regulation — doesn’t matter so much as some sort of move being made. The longer the country waits, he warns, the more economically catastrophic such moves will be given the potential stranding of fossil fuel assets and compounding of climate change-related costs.

“If the Conservative Party had overthrown [Harper] in the last year, I would be saying ‘let’s see what they do,’” Jaccard concludes.

“But because they have not and given the idea of him continuing as prime minister, any of the other parties would be better.”

Image: Mark Jaccard via Running on Climate

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.

Late Saturday afternoon, Transport Canada officially cleared the Marathassa to leave Canadian waters. As it slowly moves out of the Salish Sea, the bulk carrier leaves angry mayors, a combative coast guard, a distrustful public and many, many questions in its wake.

Even U.S. authorities are anxiously looking north wondering if Canada knows anything about marine oil spill response. 

What we know about this spill is important, but there’s a lot more we don’t know, and might never know, about what happened in English Bay.

We Don't Know the Total Volume of Fuel Spilled, and Maybe Never Will 

In his first press conference after the April 8th spill, Commander Roger Girouard of the Canadian Coast Guard stated that the volume of the spill was 2,700 litres, or approximately 17 barrels of bunker C fuel. He reiterated this point several times at media appearances and press conferences in the weeks following the spill. Federal Industry Minister James Moore echoed his comments.

Vancouver City Manager Penny Ballem disagrees. In her presentation to Vancouver City Council after the spill, she quoted officials saying that figure is incorrect and the real volume is likely in the range of 3,000 – 5,000 litres spilled.

Similarly, there’s the reality that even the most successful oil spill cleanup efforts only recover a small portion of the oil. In 2010, Gerald Graham, president of Worldocean Consulting, a marine oil spill prevention and response planning firm based in British Columbia, told LiveScience.com that recovering between 10 and 15 per cent of conventional oil spilled in seawater is a ‘best case’ scenario.

Except bunker C fuel — the product spilled in English Bay — is not conventional: it is denser, more viscous and heavier than conventional crude oil. Unlike conventional crude oil, bunker C fuel is not certain to float on water surfaces, nor does it weather and dissolve as easily. On average only five to 10 per cent of the bunker C fuel will evaporate in the first 24 hours after a spill. Instead it breaks into tarballs and settles lower in the water column, sometimes as far down as one to three metres below the surface.

On April 9, Commander Girouard reported that cleanup crews had recovered approximately 1,400 litres of the oil spilled. A few days later, a statement from Coast Guard Commissioner Jody Thomas stated that cleanup crews recovered 80 per cent of fuel spilled within 36 hours after the spill.

If these figures are correct, then without counting the oil which washed up on Vancouver and West Vancouver beaches or the large ‘bathtub ring’ of bunker fuel oil encircling the Marathassa, the Coast Guard should have recovered approximately 2,200 litres of spilled oil in the first 36 hours (based on lower spill estimates). This is definitely possible, but extremely unlikely given past precedent of what constitutes a ‘best case’ cleanup.

But if total spill volumes are incorrect — as City Manager Ballem and others suggest — there is a lot of oil still unaccounted for.

It is worth noting that in the first 24 hours after the spill, oil traveled 12 kilometres to foul at least 10 beaches in Vancouver, West Vancouver and North Vancouver.

Would an Operational Kits Coast Guard Station Have Helped? Who Knows

In 2013, the federal government closed the Kitsilano Coast Guard station, consolidating operations with the Coast Guard Station in Delta, B.C. Both the City of Vancouver and the province of B.C. publicly objected to the closure, citing its importance in oil spill and disaster response efforts.

“The Kitsilano Coast Guard base has been one the most important public safety resources in and around the City of Vancouver, responding to over 300 calls each year. Vancouver is one of the busiest harbours in North America and has depended on robust search and rescue services that are professionally-trained and fully-resourced by the federal government. In the event of major freighter, cruise ship, or aviation emergency, we remain very concerned that the Kitsilano closure will put many additional lives in danger.” – Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson

Both Commander Girouard and Federal Industry Minister James Moore stated they believe the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station being open would have made no difference in the cleanup of this spill. Speaking to the media on April 12, Girouard said the station was never manned with environmental response experts, and would not have been called on in this scenario. James Moore echoed his comments.

According to Commander Girouard, the Kitsilano Coast Guard station had less than 100 metres of oil-absorbing booms, and that they were likely too old to be useful.

Retired Coast Guard Captain Tony Toxopeus, who served at the base, disagrees. So does Mike Cotter, General Manager of the Jericho Sailing Centre, which is located next door to the shuttered station. In an interview with CKNW’s Shane Woodford, Captain Toxopeus confirmed that the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station had two ships (a pollution response vehicle and an Osprey cutter), along with oil spill response equipment and staff trained in pollution response.

At the same time, an operational Kitsilano Coast Guard Station would have greatly reduced the response time for the spill.

As it stands, it took the Coast Guard more than three hours from the time the spill was reported to send a ship to investigate, a further four hours to set up an absorbent boom and a total 12 hours to completely encircle the Marathassa in a containment boom. In an open letter to Minister Moore, Mr. Cotter said:

“Had the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station remained open, the Osprey could have been on scene within 10 minutes in direct contact with the boater who originally reported the spill just after 5 pm on April 8. Her crew would’ve assessed the scene (the boater says he could tell the fuel was coming from the aft section of the source ship) and activated the PRV crew who would’ve been on scene and commenced spill containment within an hour of the report.”

Late last week, the federal government announced that it would also be closing the Vancouver office for its Marine Communications and Traffic Services. Now everything from marine safety communications co-ordination with rescue resources, vessel traffic services and waterway management, broadcast weather and sail plan services for the entire south coast and most of Vancouver Island will be managed out of the Victoria office.

As the Globe and Mail recently reported, officials in Washington State have serious doubts about the Canadian government's ability to address oil spills in the Puget Sound. The Washington Department of Ecology told the state's Governor that "B.C. lacks authority over marine waters, and their federal regime is probably a couple decades behind the system currently in place in Washington State."

A U.S. maritime lawyer also said if the U.S. Coast Guard scored an eight or nine on a worldwide 10-point spill response scale, Canada would score a one or two. 

We Don’t Know Who is Responsible for Monitoring Burrard Inlet for Long-term Spill Impacts

To be clear, the Burrard Inlet and the Salish sea have not been pristine waterways for a long time. E.coli contamination regularly closes local beaches to swimming in the summer, and the waterway is a working port. All of that considered, Vancouver beaches attract millions of people every year, and many people fish its waters for recreation or subsistence.

On April 15, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans banned fishing for shellfish and groundfish in Burrard Inlet, citing concerns about the Marathassa spill. DFO calls the closure a precautionary measure, and gives no indication of when the fisheries may reopen.

The closure makes sense, of course. While the Marathassa spill was minor,  toxins from bunker C fuel can stay in the water for a very long time. A study done by U.S. Department of Fisheries scientists on a 2007 bunker C fuel spill in San Francisco harbour found the spill had decimated local herring stocks and left surviving fish with extensive birth defects and short life spans. This persisted for at least three years after the spill.

But Vancouver’s waters are different. According to Dr. Peter Ross, director of the Vancouver Aquarium’s Ocean Pollution Research Program, there’s no baseline data for English Bay’s waters, nor is there a cohesive long-term monitoring program. Both of these deficiencies make it hard to measure long term impacts.

Since coastal waters fall under the purview of the federal government, it should be the responsibility of the DFO to monitor long-term impacts. But millions of dollars in cuts by the federal government have decimated DFO budgets, closing programs and leaving at least 50 scientists out of work. This included Dr. Ross, who used to run a marine toxicology program through DFO. It no longer exists.

The Vancouver Aquarium, the City of Vancouver and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have all collected water samples independently following the spill. Unfortunately, as Dr. Ross says, "There is no official clarity around who is to monitor the effects of a spill."

WWKMD? We Don’t Know What Kinder Morgan Would Do Differently

For all the opacity of the government response, one thing is crystal clear after the Marathassa spill: we could, and must, do better by these waters. As the National Energy Board considers approval of the Kinder Morgan TransMountain tanker and pipeline expansion, both parties could be learning from the Marathassa response and ensuring that future spill preparedness and response is truly ‘world-class.' But, as always, there’s a problem.

Namely, that Kinder Morgan refuses to publicly reveal any of its oil spill cleanup plans for Burrard Inlet — even though the company owns 50.9 per cent of Western Canada Marine Response Company, the lead party responsible for cleanup operations on the Marathassa spill and the primary subcontractor for any future oil spills on the B.C. south coast.

This leaves all levels of government in the dark about what might happen if the new twinned Kinder Morgan pipeline ruptures again (as it did in 2007), or one of the hundreds of new Aframax-sized tankers (40,000 tonnes larger than the Marathassa bulk carrier) leaks diluted bitumen into English Bay.

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.

Canada’s charitable sector — the second largest charitable sector in the world, after the Netherlands — has come under threat from federal policies that hinder advocacy groups from doing their work, according to new research.

As DeSmog Canada and other outlets have reported, numerous charities — ranging from development organizations to women’s rights groups — have lost their funding from the federal government during the last several years.

Most recently, in June of 2012, the federal government announced $8 million would be devoted to investigating and auditing charities to ensure their activities comply with Canada Revenue Agency rules. (DeSmog Canada recently revealed through Access to Information legislation that, in fact, more than $13 million has been dedicated to these audits).

Several individuals and organizations have criticized the audits as politically-motivated.

So far, we haven’t heard much from the charities themselves under audit, because, with resources already stretched thin and sometimes multiple federal auditors scrutinizing their work, speaking out has been seen as too much of a risk.

But what charities haven’t been able to say for themselves is now outlined in a new analysis by former journalist and graduate student Gareth Kirkby. His research on the ‘chill effect’ that resulted from the ongoing audits was brought together in his thesis (attached below), recently submitted to faculty in the public communications department at Royal Roads University.

According to Kirkby, who guaranteed 16 charities under audit anonymity in his research, groups have drastically changed their behaviour since the wave of audits, limiting their capability to carry out their mandates, which involve advocating for progressive changes that will benefit often under-represented communities, individuals and the environment.

According to Kirky’s research, charities that work on advocacy issues face the toughest scrutiny from the federal government. Environmental organizations dealing with issues related to the petroleum industry, Kirkby said, “seem to be the most heavily targeted.”

The audits have “amounted to a change in the discourse emanating from these organizations,” Kirkby told DeSmog Canada in a recent interview. And this is happening at a time, he said, when we need these groups more engaged.

“We have some complicated and challenging issues in our society right now that we really need to talk about. And we need to talk about these issues openly, vigorously and without intimidation from the government.”

The transition in Canada

Changes to the charitable sector were dramatically accelerated under the leadership of the Harper government, especially after the Conservatives won a majority in 2011, Kirkby’s research found.

By 2006, Kirkby said, it was clear what the incoming government’s priorities were, and what they were not.

“It was very clear right off the bat with the first budget in 2006,” Kirkby said. “There were major cuts in funding to organizations that had received [previous funding] from the federal government.”

These included funding cuts to groups that, in some cases, had been operating on for half a century — charities like the Court Challenges Program, the Canadian Council on International Co-operation, MATCH International, the Rights and Democracy Agency and the church group KAIROS. (A detailed analysis of funding cuts to charities between 2006 and 2011 can be found in the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report: Silencing Dissent: The Conservative Record).

Then, Kirkby said, the charitable sector lost its invitation to speak up for the citizens they represented. And this, according to Kirkby, happed to charitable groups from all across the sector – from development organizations to women’s rights groups.

But by 2012 a new pattern emerged, one that clearly demonstrated a more narrow focus on environmental charities.

At the time, when asked about environment critics receiving federal funding, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said, “If it’s the case that we’re spending on organizations that are doing things contrary to government policy, I think that is an inappropriate use of taxpayer’s money and we’ll look to eliminate it.”

According to Kirkby, that new trajectory was most publicly marked by former Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver’s open letter, published in the Globe and Mail in January 2012, that accused environmental groups of being ‘foreign funded radicals’ intent on ‘hijacking the regulatory process’ regarding oil pipelines.

That letter was quickly bolstered by three cabinet ministers who “compared charities to criminal organizations, terrorist organizations, [and] money launderers,” Kirkby said.

“Then [former Minister of Public Safety] Vic Towes put environmental organizations on the list of potential security threats in the government’s terrorism strategy. All of that happened in pretty rapid succession and that created a climate of vilification, of demonization of environmental groups but also a great deal of confusion in the public mind.”

The accusations were eventually topped off with an announcement that the federal government would spend the next several years — and millions of taxpayer dollars — investigating charities (many environmental), their funding and the nature of their ‘political activity.’

Silenced

What followed was a major chill in the charity world, according to Kirkby’s research. Charities clammed up and hunkered down, trying to survive the strain of sometimes back-to-back audits and looming fears over the possible backlash of any activity seen as unfavourable by the federal government.

Kirkby said in his overview of many of these charities, he found them to be generally “moderate.” He said this was in large part due to Canadians being a “moderate people” and the restrictions already in place on charities: only 10 per cent of their activity can be political in nature (no partisan activity is allowed).

Dressed in the language of ministers like Oliver, Kirkby said, the federal government “framed [political activity] very effectively as if political activities were a bad thing and had to be stopped — had to be audited and stopped.”

“But, you know,” Kirkby added, “political activities are basically something as simple as asking people call their MP about an issue they care about.”

The issue had become so contentious, however, and charities so heavily scrutinized by government, and a small but very vocal sector of society, that a lot of internal damage to groups had been done.

That created an “inward turn” according to Kirkby’s research. He found most under audit were “distracted” by the presence and pressure of auditors and began “altering the tone, content and frequency or channel of communication” with their audiences and government.

A general sense of “what are they coming for next?” diverted the majority of groups under audit from their mission, Kirkby found.

“There was a silencing,” he said. “Not a silencing, but a muzzling that occurred, as environmental and other charities wondered what was next.”

The sum of the parts

This isn’t some grand conspiracy, Kirkby noted, just the culmination of years of decision-making that advances the private sector and hurts the “third sector,” the collective of non-profits and charities serving civil society.

But intentional or not, the outcome affects democracy all the same, Kirkby concluded.

“I don’t think that there’s necessarily… some blueprint that is being followed but the accumulation of these various tactical actions results very much in damage to the vigour of our democracy,” he said.

What is clear is that the current federal government appears to “have very close ties to one sector,” Kirkby said, adding, “that’s not unprecedented in this country.” He recounted former Liberal government’s support of companies like Bombardier and Boeing.

The situation, however, has scaled up with the Harper government’s support of the oil and gas sector, Kirkby said. “So we see this really close alignment of whatever benefits the petroleum industry, benefits government, and the government seems to believe that what seems good for the petroleum industry is what is good for Canada.”

Whoever contradicts that conviction is being “bullied into muting their messages,” Kirkby said.

With these forces acting in concert, Kirkby said, “what you have is a government that is too close to a sector. It first of all seems to be using the levers of power that are available to a government – like the tax authority – to fight its policy battles.”

“When you add that up what you have is a narrowing of debate and a polarizing of viewpoints, rather than a discussion.”

About “more than just charities”

For Kirkby this issue has everything and nothing to do with charities:

“I say this isn’t about charities — and yes, it is a little about charities because they are an important part of civil society, a very important contributor to conversation — but what we’re doing, this is a problem for all of us,” he said.

“If we’re not hearing all the options on policy, if we’re not having a vigorous discussion on the way forward, we risk choosing wrong options. There has been a muzzling and silencing of particularly environmental charities, but not only environmental charities, development charities as well, at a key moment when these issues need a thorough airing.”

These issues, Kirkby said, cover everything from wealth inequality to climate change and all deserve more enriched public conversations.

“We’re at a time when we’re seeing a reduction of the middle class, and polarization around income that is very much on people’s minds; concerns about quantity and quality of jobs; we’re seeing human rights issues in Canada and internationally; we’re seeing Canadians are becoming aware that many of our mining companies are quite controversial in many of the developing countries in which they are operating.”

But at the forefront of Canada’s concerns are issues of the environment and how our natural resources are managed.

“On the environmental front we’re at a critical time when we’re considering a massive expansion of the oilsands; we’re considering multiple pipelines to take bitumen to various coasts of the United States and shipping them through inner waters, or transporting them by train and we’ve got organizations that are looking at… the impact of all these things on land-based and sea-based ecosystems and individual species, including species at risk.”

The good old days

Throughout his research, Kirkby noted a continuing trend — far outdating the current federal government — to limit the involvement and capacity of the charitable sector in policy discussions.

But this wasn’t always the case.

There was a time in Canada when citizen groups were invited to the policy table, at the highest federal level, and asked for their ideas on new programs and legislation. In the mid-twentieth century, providing federal funds to charitable groups that defended civil society, even if they were critical of government, was seen as a democratic good. That era marked the beginning of a flourishing sector of non-governmental organizations.

Not only were these groups shown early drafts of new policies — they were often invited to help craft them, giving advice and input at the earliest developmental stages.

“They used to be invited in to speak to cabinet minsters and senior bureaucrats about ideas for policies and to comment on policies as they came to light,” Kirkby said. “They largely got shut out of that way of communicating and that included environmental organizations and development organizations that had developed a strong reputation as authoritative representatives on policies.”

“It’s well-documented by researchers and academics that for 30 years there has been a gradual reduction in reach of non-profit sector and of civil society organizations,” Kirkby said. By the 1980s and thereafter, “there was less recognition of the representative nature of the organizations and more seeing them as service delivery vehicles on contract to the government.”

Eventually funding cuts and the establishment of new ‘priorities’ for the charitable and non-profit sector forced many of these groups out of the government’s inner circle. Given time, the charitable sector was increasingly seen as an outsider to government, even an obstacle to certain government agendas.

“There was a tendency to pull back and say that the only legitimate representation to the government were elected officials,” Kirkby explained. “The rest were special interest groups.”

“And though they may have some good ideas, the government felt it could pick and choose when and how and if it would listen to them. We’ve seen a corresponding loss of access to comment on government policies that were in formulation including in really early idea formulation of what public policy should be.”

And that access is just what is needed to ensure Canadians are getting the kind of policies they deserve.

As Allan Northcott, vice president of the Calgary-based Max Bell Foundation, recently wrote for The Philanthropist, charities have brought Canadians some of the most basic policies we get to take for granted every day.

Laws against drunk driving, regulating tobacco, protecting baby products from bisphenol-A, mental health services, the Boreal Forest Agreement — these are just some of the benefits society gains from the hard work of nonprofits and charities.

“But, of course,” Northcott writes, “our collective safety and security, well-being, and prosperity do not appear out of thin air.”

With charities under increased scrutiny, for better or for worse Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of that.

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.

For five long years the federal government and the oil industry have lobbied against the European Union labeling oilsands (also called tar sands) bitumen as ‘dirty oil’ in its Fuel Quality Directive (FQD). A new report released yesterday reveals the recent involvement of the U.S. in the lobby offensive to keep the EU market open for bitumen exports has tipped the scales in favour of oilsands proponents.

“The sustained attacks by the U.S. and Canada on the European Union’s key legislation on transport fuel emissions seem to be paying off,” Fabian Flues of Friends of the Earth Europe, the author of the report, admits.

The report shows the EU Fuel Quality Directive, a piece of legislation designed to reduce global warming greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the EU’s transportation sector, is unlikely to acknowledge fuels from different sources of oil – conventional oil, oilsands, oil shale – have different carbon footprints. Instead all oils will more than likely be treated as having the same GHG emissions intensity 'value' in the Directive. This is exactly what Canada, the oil industy and now the U.S. have been pushing for.

“Europe is again failing to stand up effectively for its own climate policy,” Flues says.

Trade talks, not science, weakening the Fuel Quality Directive

The EU has not fallen for the federal government’s argument that bitumen produces only marginally more GHG emissions than conventional oil in extraction, processing, and use. A European Commission study found bitumen’s carbon footprint is between 12 – 40 per cent higher than conventional oil.

The report reveals trade, not science, is the cause of the EU backing off from implementing the Fuel Quality Directive as it was originally meant to be implemented. To reduce GHG emissions from transportation the Directive discourages transport fuel suppliers from selling fuels with high carbon footprints in the EU. Identifying which fuels have higher carbon footprints was meant to make things easier for fuel suppliers to reduce the GHG emissions output of their product.

“The delay and weakening of the European Fuel Quality Directive once again reveals that agreements like CETA (the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement) are less about trade and more about limiting the ability of governments to effectively regulate in the public interest,” Scott Harris, trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians, says.

Fuel Quality Directive subject of CETA talks

The report argues the U.S. and Canada are using their own ongoing trade negotiations with the EU to undermine the Fuel Quality Directive. Canada and the EU have consistently maintained their trade negotiations for the CETA and the Directive are two separate issues. The evidence indicates otherwise:

“The foreign policy think tank The Polish Insti­tute for International Affairs reported that the FQD had been raised in the CETA negotiations and there have been calls in Canada to suspend the negotiations until the high GHG value for tar sands has been resolved to Canadian satisfac­tion,” the report states.

“While other governments are trying to make communities safer, the Canadian government is using its political muscle to push things in the opposite direction so it can export high carbon tar sands oil as quickly as possible,” Mike Hudema, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, says.

“It’s astonishing that as we watch the fires spread in the Northwest Territories and the flood waters rise in the Prairies our government still isn’t getting the message – climate change is real and we need action immediately,” Hudema states.

The Globe and Mail reported as earlier as 2011 that anonymous sources had said Canada had threatened “to void the free trade deal” if the Fuel Quality Directive was implemented.

“Even before it is signed, CETA is being used to water down much-needed public policy. Imagine what will happen to regulations on both sides of the Atlantic if the deal is actually implemented,” Harris of the Council of Canadians says.

U.S. joins the lobby offensive

The U.S. in some ways has been more open about its lobbying against the Fuel Quality Directive. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman confirmed he “raised these issues [of the FQD implementation] with senior Commission officials on several occasions, including in the context of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnerships (TTIP).” The TTIP is the trade agreement between the U.S. and the EU currently under negotiation.

European Commission documents obtained by Friends of the Earth Europe reveal the U.S. trade missions has “substantive concerns” with the Fuel Quality Directive singling out fuels produced from bitumen as having a higher carbon footprint than conventional oil. Like Canada and the oil industry, the U.S. wants all oil – regardless of GHG emissions – to be treated the same as conventional oil in the Directive.

It appears this new pressure from the U.S. is the straw breaking the camel’s back:

“[Media] reports claim that the system chosen by the Commission is one of averaging of all crudes – exactly what the U.S. mission had requested in its e-mail. If they are correct, the new FQD proposal will be considerably less effective in discouraging the import of highly climate damaging oil, such as tar sands. It might well be the case that the FQD is the first environmental casualty of the TTIP negotiations,” the report states.

Recently eleven members of U.S. Congress sent a letter to the US trade mission expressing their concerns “that official U.S. trade negotiations could undercut the EU’s commendable efforts to reduce carbon pollution.” 

Image Credit: OpenEuropeBlog

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.

This is Part 1 of the series "Science on the Chopping Block," an in-depth look at federal cuts to science programs in Canada and what they mean for some of the country's most important researchers.

As cuts to science budgets and programs continue by the federal government, former scientists and academics who’ve lost their funding say the cuts have upended their careers, compromised knowledge about Canada’s environment and undercut development of the next generation of scientists.

Since the cuts began about five years ago, the federal government has either reduced funding or shut down more than 150 science-related programs and research centres and dismissed more than 2,000 scientists.

With the recently announced cuts to Environment Canada, by 2017 the department will be operating with close to 30 per cent fewer dollars than it had in 2012.  

As the impacts of the cuts grow, DeSmog Canada has reached out to former government and university scientists to hear their stories.

Unwatched Parks?

When Dana Haggarty started at Parks Canada in 2007, her job was to take stock of the ecological integrity of Nahanni National Park Reserve in the Northwest Territories. Haggarty saw it as “a dream position” at an organization where she “saw room for growth.” [view:in_this_series=block_1]

It was an exciting time. In 2005, the auditor general had found gaps in the monitoring of parks and Parks Canada was feverishly working to improve its knowledge of regions like Nahanni National Park.

Haggarty, along with other researchers at Parks Canada, was getting ready to announce an expanded boundary for Nahanni in 2009.

Already understaffed and overworked, Haggarty and fellow scientists worked “their butts off” to complete their part of the State of Parks report. The report, produced every five years, provided decision-makers with science-based evidence to help them direct resources.

Haggarty, excited about the future, decided to go on unpaid educational leave to get a PhD in marine biology, focusing on rockfish conservation. She saw it as a career-building move and she wanted to return to Parks Canada and work on restoration efforts along the Pacific coast.

Then major cuts came in 2012. Parks Canada had $29.2-million cut from its budget and 638 jobs were deemed surplus. The cuts drastically affected Parks Canada’s regional service centres, which were consolidated across the country. For her work in the remote area of Nahanni, Haggerty depended heavily on the experienced scientists at the local regional service centre.

She was “just floored” when her mentor Phil Lee’s job was deemed surplus. Lee provided support to scientists in fields in all of the western and northwestern parks, she said.

“There was no way I could do my job without Phil,” Haggarty said. “It said they were absolutely not committed to ecological integrity or basically doing science in parks.”

After the cuts, Haggarty’s position was still available in Nahanni, but there was a lot of confusion around it, she said. On cusp of finishing her PhD, Haggarty saw all of the coastal parks positions she’d hoped to have some day eliminated, so she gave up her job.

“I had such a bad taste in my mouth over what happened to science at Parks Canada. The program that I had worked so hard on and cared so much about was just gutted,” she said.

In response to a previous criticism of its ecological integrity program, Parks Canada said the scientists were hired to develop monitoring programs, but now the agency was moving to another phase of the work.

A 2013 auditor general report stated Parks Canada “has been slow to implement systems for monitoring and reporting on ecological integrity. It has failed to meet many deadlines and targets, and information for decision making is often incomplete or has not been produced.” 

In an e-mail response to questions from DeSmog Canada, Mélissa Larose, a Parks Canada media relations officer, said: “Parks Canada will continue to undertake priority natural resource conservation actions, including species at risk recovery, in national parks and national marine conservation areas that result in tangible and measurable conservation outcomes.”

Haggarty is now considering postdoctoral research, consulting work or moving into the private sector. She would return to Parks Canada if commitments were made to fund the science, she said.

Forgotten Forests?

At one time, Philip Burton managed a multi-disciplinary team of 12 people studying the mountain pine beetle epidemic for the Pacific Forestry Centre.

During the last decade, the beetle — fuelled by climate change — went on an unprecedented tear across British Columbia, infesting and killing large swaths of lodgepole pine trees.

The beetle then expanded beyond its historical range jumping the Rockies into Alberta, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Today, as Saskatchewan gears up for its battle with the beetle, scientists fear the problem could jump to the boreal forest, potentially spreading across Canada.

It’s after the beetle tears through an area that the story gets interesting, Burton says. How is the forest going to recover? What needs to be done to make the forest more resilient to future pests, especially in a changing climate?

“Just as we were getting to the more interesting aspects of the problem, the plug was pulled,” Burton said.

Jacinthe Perras, spokesperson for Natural Resources Canada, said in an email response to questions that “research on mountain pine beetle is ongoing, including field study in all affected parts of British Columbia, Alberta and beyond.

Burton agrees other aspects of the beetle’s biology are being studied however “field study in all affected parts” is “physically impossible,” he said. Furthermore, even though studies continue “field-based research has clearly decreased over the last many years, with a growing emphasis on policy support, remote sensing, and simulation modelling instead,” he said.

Burton’s position was eliminated and his office in Prince George, connected to the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC), was consolidated with a Victoria location. He had the opportunity to re-apply as a research scientist in Victoria, but declined.

“All employees at UNBC were offered the opportunity to continue their work at the lab in Victoria,” Perras, from Natural Resources Canada, said.

After the pine beetle epidemic moved through British Columbia, the provincial government closed its forest research division and unsustainably ramped up harvest rates to capture the dying pine trees and bycatch, Burton said.

“We are back into 1890s Gold Rush mentality instead of thoughtful planning for the future,” he said.

Burton stayed in the north in Terrace, B.C., working at a satellite campus of UNBC as the regional chair of ecosystem science and management. He was hired to grow the science program, but is doing limited new science.

“In a 30-year career, this is first time where I have run out of ideas as to where to apply for research funding to support field research for graduate students,” Burton said. “The funding is really poor unless you are going to partner up with industry.”

Image Credit: DeSmog Canada

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 National Energy Board (NEB), the federal regulator responsible for inter-provincial pipelines, appears to have jumped the gun on TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline proposal by releasing a 'list of issues' to be considered for the project's approval, before the company submitted an official application for the project. If approved, Energy East will transport 1.1 million barrels of oil and oilsands bitumen 4,600 kilometres across the country from Hardisty, Alberta to Saint John, New Brunswick each day.

“It is highly irregular and, as far as I know, unprecedented," Jason MacLean, an assistant professor of law, and specialist in environmental law, at Lakehead University, said. "Releasing the list of issues in advance is acting impermissibly in favour of the proponent of the pipeline project.”

MacLean is also acting counsel for a legal challenge announced Thursday against the NEB as a result of the 'list of issues' release. In the past the NEB has waited for pipeline companies to apply for projects before deciding what issues are relevant to their approval.

“The NEB is acting in bad faith and demonstrating how biased it is in favour of the oil industry by tailoring the list of issues to be considered to the company’s advantage,” Andrea Harden-Donahue, Energy and Climate Justice Campaigner with the Council of Canadians, said. The Council of Canadians – one of Canada’s largest civil society organizations – is spearheading the legal challenge.

The legal challenge states the NEB rigged the list of issues to favour TransCanada and the oil industry. According to the suit, issues disadvantageous to the project, such as impacts to climate change and First Nations living downstream from the oilsands, are absent from the list.

“This raises serious concerns of how under the Harper government the NEB, a federal body with a history of ruling in favour of industry, has been given more authority to limit the public’s voice in major pipeline decisions,” Harden-Donahue told DeSmog Canada. 

The NEB claims it “does not have regulatory authority over upstream or downstream activities associated with the development of oilsands, or the end use of the oil to be transported by the Project. Therefore, the Board will not consider these issues.”

MacLean argues the NEB's position is "hypocritical" since the board will consider upstream (how it affects the oil industry) and downstream (how it affects oil refineries) economic impacts of the Energy East pipeline project.

“It is inconsistent, improper, and to a certain extent, hypocritical to consider the upstream and downstream economic and commercial impacts of a pipeline – which should definitely be considered – and then ignore the upstream and downstream environmental impacts,” MacLean told DeSmog Canada.

MacLean also points out that by not considering environmental issues connected to pipelines the Board is in contravention of its own mandate. According to the NEB, the Board exists to promote “safety and security, environmental protection and economic efficiency in the Canadian public interest within the mandate set by the Parliament of Canada.”

“It's impossible to square it – that it is not 'in the public interest' to consider the adverse effects of climate change. The relationship between increased greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is quite clear,” MacLean said from Thunder Bay, Ontario.

When polled last November 84 per cent of Canadians said they wanted action on climate change. It is estimated the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Energy East pipeline project will be the equivalent of Ontario deciding to maintain all their coal-fired power plants instead of shutting them down. Ontario’s successful phase out of coal plants has been heralded as the single most significant GHG emissions reduction initiative in North America.

“Canadians believe the federal government and its federal pipeline regulator should act neutrally and in the public interest, not govern for special interests,” MacLean told DeSmog Canada.

The Federal Court of Appeal will decide after the NEB and federal government respond to the legal challenge whether the it will move through to appeals court. This is the second legal challenge in less than year against an NEB list of issues for a pipeline project. ForestEthics Advocacy also has an ongoing case against the Line 9 pipeline project.

ForestEthics argues limiting the Line 9 issues the public can comment on and restricting members of the public from participating in the decision making process is a violation of freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The NEB approved Line 9 last March. 

Image Credit: University of Alberta

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.

Fish-bearing waters are less protected from pollution after regulations passed by the federal government give Fisheries and Environmental Ministers the ability to grant blanket-authorizations to pollute if the polluting activity is related to fish-farming, research, or falls under other federal or provincial regulations or guidelines, which are not legally binding.

“Deregulating pollution in fish-bearing waters is short-sighted and irresponsible. They represent yet another attempt by the federal government to abdicate its responsibility to Canadians to protect fish and fish habitat,” Jessica Clogg, executive director and senior counsel at the West Coast Environmental Law Association said.

Dumping pollutants, such as drugs, aquatic pesticides and biochemical oxygen-demanding matter, into fish-bearing waters is prohibited in Section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act, except with a permit. The new regulations bypass permits and exempt pollution in a wide-range of circumstances, including aquaculture.

The Harper government quietly made way for a major expansion of fish-farming in British Columbia in January after opening the entire coast, excluding the Discovery Islands region, to aquaculture. Critics say the decision to scale up the fish-farming sector ignores the conclusions of the 2012 Cohen Commission report, the result of a three-year inquiry into the 2009 collapse of the Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery.

The Cohen Commission's final report made 75 recommendations which have yet to be implemented by the federal government. In February conservation groups filed petitions with the auditor general of Canada, requesting the Harper government report back to the public on the fate of the Cohen Commission’s recommendations.

Critics with the Watershed Watch Salmon Society fear the decision to expand fish farming on the B.C. coast is putting wild fish stocks at risk.

“The decision to expand destructive aquaculture practices anywhere along B.C.’s coast is a huge betrayal of the concerns raised in the Cohen inquiry,” Craig Orr with the society said.

The 2012 omnibus budget bills C-38 and C-45 eliminated several pieces of environmental legislation in Canada and revised both the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Fisheries Act. As a result aquaculture projects, among many other kinds of projects, are no longer assessed for environmental impacts by the federal government. 

The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement that accompanied the federal government’s new pollution regulations states the new rules will bring greater certainty to the industry.

According to the West Coast Environmental Law Association members of the public are concerned the new rules will limit oversight of potentially harmful pollution.

“What we really need is certainty that our rivers, lakes, and oceans are protected," Anna Johnston, staff counsel at the West Coast Environmental Law Association said.

“Requiring permits for pollution ensures that the regulators are aware of the pollution, allows site-specific considerations to be taken into account and allows for adjustments if any unwanted harms happen. What these regulations really enable is the government’s ability to turn a blind eye.”

Image Credit: lipseyhimsley via Flickr

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

The Chippewas of the Thames First Nation have launched a legal challenge against the National Energy Board’s (NEB) decision to approve Enbridge’s Line 9 oil pipeline project in southern Ontario and southern Quebec. The NEB – Canada’s independent energy regulator – approved the project to ship 300,000 barrels a day of oil and oilsands bitumen last month with soft conditions.

“This 40-year old pipe is subject to corrosion and heavy crude is going to be shipped through in higher volumes. We feel that this raises the possibility of new impacts beyond the right-of-way and we are concerned about our water resources and the environment,” says Chief Joe Miskokomon of the Chippewas of the Thames or Deshkaan Ziibing* in the Anishinaabe (Ojibwe) language.

Deshkaan Ziibing is one of fourteen Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee (Six Nations), and Lenape (Delaware) First Nations living along or near the 38-year old Line 9 pipeline. DeSmog Canada reported last November that the federal government’s failure to fulfill its legal duty to consult with all of these First Nations could land the federal government and the Line 9 project in court.

The legal challenge was filed last Monday with the Federal Court of Appeal on the grounds the NEB approved Line 9 without the federal government “conducting any meaningful consultation” with Deshkaan Ziibing.

“The federal government has to consider our treaty and aboriginal rights enshrined within the constitution,” states Miskokomon in a press release. 

Federal Government Has Legal Duty to Consult on Line 9

“We still need to be consulted and we are willing to listen,” Myeengun Henry, a band councilor with Deshkaan Ziibing said in an interview with DeSmog Canada the night of Line 9’s approval.

The federal government did not attempt to consult any of the First Nations along the route of Line 9.

Both the Canadian Constitution and the Supreme Court have made clear the federal government’s legal duty to consult indigenous peoples in Canada (First Nations, Metis, Inuit) if a decision under contemplation may have adverse impacts on their constitutionally-protected indigenous and treaty rights:

“The honour of the Crown requires that these (indigenous) rights be determined, recognized and respected. This, in turn, requires the Crown, acting honourably, to participate in processes of negotiation. While this process continues, the honour of the Crown may require it to consult and, where indicated, accommodate Aboriginal interests” – Supreme Court’s ruling in Haida First Nation v. British Columbia (2004).

Proposed Changes to Line 9 Triggers the Duty to Consult

The NEB approved changes for Line 9 – increasing the capacity of the pipeline by 20 per cent to transport oilsands bitumen – carry with them new risks and new potential impacts on Deshkaan Ziibing and other First Nations in Ontario and Quebec. According to a pipeline safety expert who spoke with DeSmog last October the odds of a Line 9 rupture, given proposed changes, are 90 per cent.

“This is not an issue of inadequate or improper consultation with First Nations. No consultation by the federal government has taken place whatsoever,” lawyer Scott Smith told DeSmog Canada in an interview last November. Smith represented Deshkaan Ziibing and Aamjiwnaang First Nation in the Line 9 hearings. Deshkaan Ziibing and Aamjiwnaang are both in southwestern Ontario.

The federal government is expected to contest that changes to the pipeline give rise to new potential risks and impacts.

“We are being denied the dialogue to be included in solutions where Aboriginal and treaty rights are impacted by significant economic proposals put forward by industry and backed by the Canadian government,” says Chief Miskokomon. “We are not going away and part of our fate rests with this appeal.”

Deshkaan Ziibing provided evidence during the Line 9 hearings by means of a traditional land use study demonstrating to the NEB that the members of Deshkaan Ziibing still exercise their “aboriginal and treaty rights within the same territory occupied by Line 9.” Hunting, trapping, fishing, and collecting medicinal plants are just some of the traditional practices and rights still exercised by members of Deshkaan Ziibing in the Thames River valley. Line 9 crosses through the river.

Public Challenges Against the Line 9 Project

This is the second legal challenge against the Line 9 project. Last summer ForestEthics Advocacy launched a lawsuit against the federal government’s restrictions on public participation in pipeline project hearings. During the Line 9 hearings, participating citizens were prevented from commenting on the impacts the pipeline would have on climate change and the expansion of the oilsands in Alberta. ForestEthics argues this is a violation of the freedom expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Two Ontario municipalities – Toronto and Whitby – have passed motions demanding the provincial government conduct an environmental assessment of the Line 9 project. The NEB-ordered environmental assessment of Line 9 was only conducted on the pipeline’s pumping stations, not on the pipeline itself. Surprisingly, the assessment failed to take in consideration what would happen if the pipeline ruptured.

*Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, and Lenape are the names for the “Ojibwe,” “Six Nations” or “Iroquois,” and “Delaware” in their respective languages. Deshkaan Ziibing is the Anishinaabe name for “Chippewas of the Thames.”

Image Credits: Chief Joe Miskokomon by Greg Plain | Line 9 map from Enbridge

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 message the federal government has been pushing through its ‘responsible resource development’ ad blitz in recent years is one of all Canadians benefiting from developing our energy sources (particularly the oilsands). This is why export pipelines must be built through our communities and LNG plants for natural gas constructed on our coasts. Canadian oil and gas must reach international markets for the economy to thrive, argues Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the infamous global finances referee, took a closer look at Canada’s energy sector – oil and gas primarily – earlier this year and finds the benefits from Canada’s energy boom still remain largely within the energy sector.

“There appears to be an important scope to increase inter-industry linkages across Canada that would lead to wider sharing of benefits from the energy sector,” concludes the IMF report released last January.

The IMF finds every dollar invested in the energy sector in Alberta grows Canadian GDP – an economic vitality indicator – by 90 cents. Of this growth, 82 cents remains in Alberta, mostly in the energy sector (67 cents). The leftover GDP growth is split between Ontario (four cents), the rest of Canada (three cents) and the U.S. (two cents).

“The (IMF) report also shows that the positive impacts of additional exports outside of the energy sector and the producing provinces are surprisingly modest,” says Andrew Jackson, senior policy advisor at the Broadbent Institute in a recent article.

Energy Sector Created Only 1.7 per cent of New Jobs in Canada from 2007 – 2012

Make no mistake the IMF report favours increasing Canadian oil and gas production and building more pipeline capacity. As one would expect the IMF sees impacts of the energy sector on Canada’s economy as positive. The report does not assess the environmental or the social consequences – particularly on Canada’s relationship with First Nations – of the energy sector, which have their own social and economic impacts.

IMF's breakdown of $1 investment in the energy sector scenario.

But the IMF almost appears disappointed by the energy sector’s contributions to economic growth and job creation in Canada:

“The energy sector accounts for only 0.1 percentage points of the average (2¼ percent) annual GDP growth over the last decade. Also, employment in the energy sector increased by less than 13,000 over 2007–12, against a total 752,000 jobs created over the same period in Canada,” states the report.

Health care and social assistance created 22,000 jobs in December 2013 alone according to Statistics Canada.

Photo from federal government's responsible resource development campaign.

While the IMF does not dare to say Canada is suffering from “Dutch disease,” it does conclude the energy boom has taken its toll on the Canadian manufacturing industry.

“Higher energy prices contributed to the real appreciation of the Canadian dollar since early 2000s, which has intensified Canada’s competitiveness challenges in non-energy sectors, particularly in manufacturing,” reads the IMF report.

Rapid Growth vs Slow Growth in Energy Sector – Modest Difference

The IMF gazes into the economic crystal ball to try to predict the future impacts of rapid versus slow development of the energy sector on the economy. If no additional infrastructure to export Canadian energy were to be built – the slow scenario – Canadian GDP would only decrease 0.5 per cent by 2020.

At the other extreme, if all proposed energy export infrastructure is approved and the energy sector develops rapidly (i.e. a 20 per cent increase in oil and gas production in the report) GDP would increase be 2 per cent by 2020. However, the IMF concludes there would be a certain downside to this growth:   

“the current account would be slightly negative, reflecting larger deterioration in the non-energy balance driven by higher imports demand from households and firms.”

Jackson says the “gap between the two scenarios is more modest than might have been thought” given the daily dose of rhetoric Canadians hear insisting the “approval of new pipelines to export oil and gas are central to Canada's economic future.”

IMF Recommendation: Strengthen Domestic Supply Chain

Strengthening Canada’s “domestic-supply chain” will increase the “spillover” benefits from the energy boom into non-energy sector industries according to the report. Building more domestic pipelines to connect western Canadian oil to eastern Canadian refineries is one of the recommendations:

“Canada’s internal market remains segmented, as refineries in eastern Canada are not connected with pipelines to western Canada…. and import much of their crude oil at the higher global (Brent) price,” argues the report.

“This has not only a direct negative impact on Canada’s energy trade balance, but potentially also an indirect one as it limits the competitive boost that Canadian manufacturing firms could derive from accessing a cheaper, domestic source of energy,” concludes the report.

All new pipeline proposals in Canada including TransCanada’s “nation builder” Energy East pipeline involve exporting Canadian oil to international markets. Enbridge’s recently approved Line 9 pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal may be the only exception, but Line 9 could easily be transformed into an export pipeline as well.

The IMF reports supports similar findings by the Canadian Energy Research Institute in 2011 that finds 94% of the economic benefits of expanding the oilsands remain in Alberta.

Image Credit: Government of Canada, IMF

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.

Several provincial initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are closing the gap created by the federal government’s continuing lack of climate legislation. This patchwork of provincial policies may be the future of climate policy in Canada, according to a review of Canadian climate or carbon policy in 2013.

“If we have learned anything about carbon policy in Canada, it is that top-down national systems are lost to the federation and we need to embrace bottom-up subnational systems,” argues the review released recently by the prestigious International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) in Winnipeg.

The Institute found in 2013 the federal government’s will to implement greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reducing regulations “evaporated," but several Canadian provinces had “major successes” in adopting measures to reduce their own provincial carbon footprints. BC’s carbon tax, Quebec’s cap and trade system and Ontario phasing out coal-fired power plants are a few highlights of 2013 filling the lack of federal climate policy gap mentioned in the report.

“In 2012 the carbon policy Lego was strewn across the floor waiting to be built. In 2013 we walked on it with bare feet. Looking forward to 2014, one has to wonder if the Lego will be put back in the box and forgotten in the basement until yet another federal plan emerges. In the meantime, look to the provinces to take it upon themselves to start building something from all of the pieces,” concludes the report.

Eighty-four percent of Canadians want the federal government to take action on climate change according to a November 2013 survey.

Climate Policy Highlights in 2013

The year of 2013 was a dismal for federal climate policy in Canada. The federal government quietly admitted to the U.N. Canada was nowhere near meeting its weak GHG reduction targets for 2020. Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Canada’s long awaited oil-and-gas sector emissions regulations were years away from becoming a reality. Many had hoped the Harper government would implement those regulations to win over U.S. President Barrack Obama on the Keystone XL pipeline at the very least.

But the year was not all bad according to the IISD report.

While the federal government in Ottawa may loathe the idea of a carbon tax east of the Rockies, B.C. decided in 2013 to keep its successful and popular carbon tax going. The price on emissions will remain at $30 per tonne as well. B.C. also decided to extend its Clean Energy Vehicle Incentive, which offers up to $5,000 off on the purchase of electric, hybrid or natural gas powered vehicles.

Back in Ontario, (in Toronto, not Ottawa) premier Kathleen Wynne announced in 2013 the shut down of all coal-fired power plants in the province will be complete by the end of this year. The Institute describes this as the “single largest regulatory action in North America” to reduce GHG emissions. Wynne followed this up with a bill to ban the use of coal for power generation in the province in the future.

And in Quebec, the province launched its cap and trade system – trading permits on allowable GHG emissions – last year. Quebec linked its system with California’s successful cap and trade system to create a bigger market to trade permits. Hopes are high that the Quebec-California emissions trading market will serve as an example for other provinces and states to use this market-based approach to reducing GHG emissions.

“Learning from our provincial policy labs and building on successes now need to be ongoing objectives of those helping to shape future policy,” IISD argues in the report.

The report also commends the actions taken by other provinces in 2013. Newfoundland and Labrador's guaranteeing a $5 billion loan for the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project and Nova Scotia’s approval of the Maritime Link – Nova Scotia buying water power from Labrador – were “major milestones in energy development in 2013." Even Alberta received recognition for reviewing how the province could make its oil and gas emissions regulations stricter.

Provincial Patchwork Policy Could Be the Future of Canadian Climate Policy

The IISD argues in absence of a unified national climate policy a fragmented climate policy made up of a “patchwork” of provincial policies is emerging in Canada.

“Against this backdrop of federal inaction and provincial patchwork, it is perhaps time to embrace policy fragmentation within the federation. The path forward for 2014 and beyond is therefore one of seeking provincial alignment to minimize long-term administrative and compliance costs,” states the report.

A fragmented provincial policies approach in the absence of federal policy is not a new concept to Canada. Canada’s current health care system of free and accessible health coverage for all Canadians was adopted by Saskatchewan before the federal government would even consider it.

The trick for an effective patchwork climate policy, according to the Institute, will be to find commonalities and linkages in the various provincial policies so they can work in cooperation with one another. 

Image Credit: International Institute for Sustainable Development Policy Brief

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.