Simon Fraser University scientist Michael Price was in his office on Saturday, putting the finishing touches on an open letter to Premier John Horgan from 180 academic scientists, when his phone rang.

The surprise caller was Kevin Jardine, associate deputy minister for B.C.’s environmental assessment office.

Jardine had got wind of the open letter — which outlines why newly introduced legislation to reform B.C.’s environmental assessment process “lacks scientific rigour, with significant consequences for the health and environment of all British Columbians” — and wanted to walk Price through the legislation.

Despite what Price called a “constructive conversation,” he wasn’t swayed by Jardine’s reassurances that the legislation addresses “three deficiencies” identified by the scientists in their letter: a lack of scientific independence, peer-review and transparency.

“I welcomed a conversation,” Price told The Narwhal. “It was good to hear the government’s side, where they’re coming from…their primary intention is to restore public confidence, to protect the environment.”

At the end of the call Price told Jardine the scientists still intended to release their letter on Monday, which outlines how the proposed legislation “falls short” when it comes to protecting the environment and restoring public confidence in environmental assessments.

“There are many aspects when it comes to scientific rigour that continue to be lacking,” Price explained. “We hope that they’ll go back to the drawing board and tweak a few things that would really help fulfill their stated goals.”

‘A culture susceptible to biased data’

Bill 51, the Environmental Assessment Act, is being studied by a Committee of the Whole House and could be passed as early as this week.

One of the main deficiencies of the legislation, according to the scientists, is that it still allows project proponents to oversee, collect and present the vast majority of evidence for environmental assessments.

“In other words, the information required to assess environmental risk would continue to be gathered and analyzed by those with a vested interest in project approval,” the scientists wrote in their open letter, which was also addressed to five ministers, including Environment Minister George Heyman.

“This lack of independence can create a culture susceptible to biased data collection or interpretation, and will continue to erode the public’s trust in a process that they expect to be fair and evidence-based,” they wrote.

Former B.C. government ecologist Jim Pojar, one of the letter’s signatories, pointed to the Pacific Northwest LNG project in the Skeena estuary as an example of why information used to assess project risk must be gathered and interpreted by independent, qualified professionals who have nothing to gain or lose.

A 1973 report found that Flora Bank, next to the proposed site for a LNG terminal on Lelu Island, has one of the largest eelgrass beds in B.C., describing it “of high biological significance as a fish (especially juvenile salmon) rearing habitat.”

But Stantec, the engineering firm hired by Pacific Northwest LNG, filed a report with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) in 2015 claiming there will be little to no environmental impact from building an LNG terminal next to Flora Bank.

That submission, which did not include field data on fish, concluded “salmon do not use Flora Bank eelgrass habitat for nursery habitat or other life dependent processes.”

Pojar said the consultant’s report “turned out to be flawed.”

“In one case they didn’t find a particular fish population because it was the wrong time of year,” he said in an interview.

Even though the NDP government says the data collection process for environmental assessments will be far more rigorous under the new legislation, Price said it is “problematic” for project proponents to remain in charge of data collection.

“Even if there is no bias there’s going to be that perceived sense of bias in the public’s eye that the proponent is working with those who are gathering the information. We really feel strongly that that needs to be totally independent.”

Amendments to Bill 51 still an option

The government could amend the bill to allow baseline data for environmental assessments to be collected by contractors who are paid by project proponents but hired by the government, said Price, who commended the NDP for overhauling the Act, calling it a “good start” and noting that it allows First Nations communities to be involved at the start of assessments.

Heyman said “unfortunately” the scientists, who are mainly from B.C., didn’t approach him or the environmental assessment office to seek clarification before releasing their letter.

“I appreciate their concerns and share many of their concerns and that’s exactly why the issues they raise are in fact addressed in the Act and I’ll be making that clearer during debate on the bill,” Heyman told The Narwhal.

“The environmental assessment office contacted them over the weekend to walk them through how the bill does provide for the independence and transparency that they seek, the release of information and I think they got some of that message. Unfortunately they had distributed the letter already.”

Lack of peer review standards

Pojar, a forest ecologist research scientist and author of B.C. natural history books, said critical thinkers will look at all sides of the issue “and decide for yourself which makes more sense.”

He pointed out that the majority of the scientists who signed the letter “do not have a vested interest, don’t work for the government and most are not employees of environmental consulting companies.”

The scientists also zeroed in on the legislation’s failure to require independent peer review of evidence about a project’s proposed environmental risk, an omission Pojar called “a big deal” for scientists.

He said peer review is standard practice and “part of the code of ethics” for scientists. “It’s the way scientists are supposed to operate.”

Instead, the legislation sets up technical advisory committees to evaluate project risk that will include provincial ministry staff who might not be experts in a relevant field such as toxicology or salmon biology.

“This status quo approach fails to require those responsible for evaluating a project’s environmental risk to have the necessary expertise to adequately assess the evidence,” said the scientists’ letter.

Data used in assessments kept from public

And then there’s the question of transparency, which has been lacking in projects such as the Site C dam on B.C.’s Peace River.

Under the proposed legislation there is no requirement that all data generated by the project proponent, or gathered by a technical advisory committee, be made public, according to the scientists.

Nor does the proposed legislation include criteria for how the government’s final assessment decisions will be made, they say.

“At the moment there’s no requirement for them to make all records available,” Price explained.

But Heyman said all documents — “with the exception of something that is proprietary information” — will be made public and no amendments to the Act are necessary.

He said the new project design process outlined by the Act will determine “exactly what kind of information is needed, where it should come from and where it should be reviewed.”

And both the technical advisory committee and the Environmental Assessment Office have the option to seek further “outside independent advice,” Heyman said.

“It was very important to me that this project be trustworthy, that it be transparent and that information be independent.”

Price said the bill contains language that gives the technical advisory committee or the Environmental Assessment Office “options” such as calling for independent evaluators. But scientists need more assurance than “options,” he said.

“If there’s no requirement we have to trust that the government or the Environmental Assessment Office will follow through and ensure that things remain independent and they maintain their scientific credibility.”

“If they have these options, these loopholes, it doesn’t fill me with a lot of confidence that the process will be as rigorous as it needs to be.”

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

A majority of B.C.’s fish processing facilities are out of compliance with their permits and some are discharging effluent “acutely lethal to fish,” according to a provincial audit report released Wednesday.

“This audit clearly tells us more work needs to be done to ensure our coastal waterways are safe for all wild fish stocks,” B.C. environment minister George Heyman said in a statement.

“The industry has been largely operating under an outdated permitting regime, going back several decades.”

The environment ministry conducted the audit after an underwater video filmed by photographer Tavish Campbell showed a stream of bloody effluent pouring into the water from farmed salmon processed by the Browns Bay Packing Company near Campbell River.

The bloody wastewater was tested and found to contain piscine reovirus (PRV). The virus has been linked to a potentially deadly disease known as HSMI that causes heart lesions and organ hemorrhaging in fish, heightening concerns about the impact of open-net pen salmon farms on the health of diminishing wild salmon populations.

Waste from fish processing plants includes “offal and other solids created during eviscerating, skinning and, filleting and also the process water that is used in fluming, butchering and cleaning,” according to the audit report.

The audit found that 72 per cent of the processing facilities examined were out of compliance with their permits, also noting that most of those permits lack the “foundational requirements” for environmental protection.

“Permits that are decades old aren’t satisfactory to protect the environment,” Heyman told The Narwhal.

“We need to review our permits more frequently.”

The ministry will begin that process by focusing on the highest volume fish processing plants, Heyman said.

Farmed salmon represent almost 70 per cent of all seafood processed at B.C.’s facilities, which also process wild salmon, other wild finfish, farmed trout, and other seafood. The audit examined 18 facilities, five of them exclusively dedicated to processing farmed salmon.

While the majority of the infractions were administrative, such as failing to post signage, more serious violations included poor effluent discharge quality and exceeding permitted discharge volumes.

Sixty per cent of the facilities whose effluent was examined as part of the audit were out of compliance with discharge volumes, including the Browns Bay Packing Company, and 50 per cent were out of compliance with discharge quality standards.

“The results of the fish toxicity tests show that four out of six effluent samples taken are acutely lethal to fish in the lab environment, meaning that the toxicity tests resulted in 50 per cent or more fish mortality,” the audit report stated.

No assessment for the presence of PRV was conducted.

Campbell commended the environment ministry for commissioning the report, calling it a “good first step.”

“I found it very distressing to dive in Brown’s Bay and see this blood coming out and have an idea that it was infected with this virus that was harming wild salmon. It feels good that there’s been a response,” he told The Narwhal.

“But it’s certainly not the end to my work to try to bring about more awareness of these viruses.”

Campbell said he’s surprised and dismayed that the audit used outdated information on PRV, drawing on a March report by the B.C. Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences instead of a paper published in May by scientists from DFO and the Pacific Salmon Foundation that highlighted a link between PRV and disease in Chinook salmon.  

“They’re not taking into account the latest science that says that PRV is a risk to wild salmon.”

“We’re calling on the government to recognize that these viruses, and especially PRV, do pose more than a minimal risk of harm to wild salmon,” he said.

The audit pointed out that the only test method currently available for PRV involves detecting genetic material present in effluent, and that B.C. lacks adequate lab capacity to monitor and report on viruses.

Heyman said the ministry is aware of the most recent study on PRV and “that’s exactly why we want to work with the federal government to reduce the impacts of PRV on fish stocks to the greatest extent possible.”  

Green Party MLA and environment spokesperson Sonia Furstenau said the audit findings illustrate why the government should adopt recent recommendations to reform B.C.’s professional reliance model, which puts industry in charge of its own environmental monitoring.

“Many British Columbians were horrified, like I was, to see Tavish Campbell’s videos of blood water effluent that prompted this audit,” Furstenau said in a statement.

“It is no wonder people don’t trust the process when we must rely on private citizens and the media to bring such serious issues to light.”

The audit comes on the heels of an announcement by the B.C. government that starting in 2022 it will only grant tenures to salmon farm operators who have reached agreements with First Nations.

Heyman said the government is taking immediate steps to ensure permits are updated and strengthened at fish processing facilities.

Among the environment ministry’s new recommendations are to modernize existing permits to include “additional environmental protection provisions, such as more rigorous discharge requirements and increased monitoring,” and to require fish processing facilities to review and update their standard operational procedures “to reduce the volume and maximize the safety of effluent discharged into the environment.”

Furstenau said adopting both the professional reliance recommendations and the environment ministry’s recommendations “will go a long way to restoring the public’s trust that government is looking out for their health and safety, as well as the long-term sustainability of our natural resource sector.”

Campbell, a campaign spokesperson for the environmental group Wild First, said the farmed salmon industry must be transitioned out of the water and onto the land.

“That really is the only solution to stopping the spread of these viruses — to grow these salmon in closed containment systems on land.”

“When we’re talking about the blood water I think it’s really important to acknowledge the fact that even if the processing plants improve the treatment of their effluent these farmed fish that are infected with PRV are still being raised in open net pens, just miles down the channel from these processing plants.”

Adam Olsen, Green Party MLA and agriculture spokesperson, pointed to the release of infected blood from farmed fish as another reason why the NDP government should keep its promise to transition away from open-net pen finfish aquaculture.

“Wild salmon are culturally, economically and environmentally essential to our province, yet we are allowing them to be hit at every stage of their development,” said Olsen. “Now we learn they have also been exposed to ‘acutely lethal’ levels of effluent.”

Of 91 different groupings of B.C. wild salmon, only 28 are expected to have sufficient numbers for a healthy population in 2018, according to DFO.

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 province has given the go-ahead for Cermaq Canada to use up to 2.3 million litres of a pesticide called Paramove 50 to remove sea lice from fish at 14 salmon farms in Clayoquot Sound, but opponents fear the mixture of hydrogen peroxide, surfactants and other chemicals will harm other species and weaken the immune system of farmed fish, making them more likely to contract diseases that could infect wild fish.

Bonny Glambeck, co-founder of Clayoquot Action, a group circulating a petition against use of the pesticide in Clayoquot Sound, said studies show the pesticide can persist in the surface layer of the water, home to marine organisms, such as Dungeness crab, prawns, young salmon and herring.

“Right now the wild salmon smolts are migrating and using the shallow areas to make their way out to the ocean and this is where it will end up when it is dissipating,” she said.

The bigger problem is that it can suppress the immune systems of farmed salmon for two weeks and that means they are more susceptible to viral outbreaks such as piscine reovirus, Glambeck said.

“So just as the young salmon are passing by the farms, we could shock these farmed fish into getting PRV or that becoming HSMI (heart and skeletal muscle inflammation disease) which is deadly to wild salmon,” she said.

Recent studies have confirmed a link between PRV, which is common among farmed salmon, and HSMI.

Although the hydrogen peroxide mixture, called Paramove 50, has been used at other sites in B.C., it has never before been used in Clayoquot Sound and the provincial government says steps are being taken to ensure the pesticide is well-diluted before it is discharged.

A permit application, submitted by Cermaq to the B.C. Ministry of Environment, requests permission to use the pesticide between January 10, 2018 and January 9, 2021 at fish farms in Fortune Channel, Bedwell Sound, Cypress Bay, Herbert Inlet, Millar Channel and Shelter Inlet.

A proposal to pour pesticide directly into pens protected with tarpaulins was turned down and the province is demanding that a well boat be used to reduce the amount of pesticides and minimize the effect on other marine organisms.

“The treatment bath, inside the well boat, will begin naturally breaking down as additional seawater is added before it’s filtered and discharged into the ocean far from shore,” Environment Minister George Heyman said in an e-mailed statement.

In 2011, over 13,000 farmed Atlantic salmon were killed at an east coast fish farm after a well boat treatment that used Paramove 50, according to an incident report filed with Health Canada.

In Norway, 126,000 farm fish died in 2016 during delousing treatment, an event fish farming company SalMar said was likely due to overexposure to hydrogen peroxide.

The government is continuing to look at whether sea lice treatments are scientifically supported and consistent with international best practices and a new interim policy, to guide statutory decision-makers, demands more stringent information-gathering and reporting, Heyman said.

That interim policy will be reviewed “over time” to ensure it is having the desired effect, he said.

“We take very seriously the concerns related to sea lice treatment expressed by First Nations and the public as the the protection of our waters and health of our wild fish stocks is paramount,” he said.

The pesticide Paramove 50, which stuns sea lice, meaning they fall off fish as they rub up against each other, is being used instead of antibiotic insecticides administered in feed, because, globally, sea lice are becoming resistant to antibiotics given to farmed fish.

However, Cermaq says the company wants to use Paramove 50 because the hydrogen peroxide bath treatment has a low environmental impact and is a more natural way to manage sea lice than feeding pesticides.

“It’s important that, as farmers, we have multiple tools in the box to allow us to effectively manage sea lice on our marine farms,” said Cermaq Canada managing director David Kiemele in an e-mailed response to questions from DeSmog Canada.

“The request and subsequent approval for the use of Paramove 50 was our first step in achieving a multi-faceted approach to integrated pest management,” said Kiemele, adding that hydrogen peroxide has been used internationally and in other areas of B.C. without negatively affecting the environment.

The Cermaq website points out that “hydrogen peroxide is almost the same as water, with just one more oxygen molecule,” and that, as long as the treatment is used properly, there are no risks to wild or farmed fish.

The Cermaq website emphasizes that fish farmers take good care of their fish, which are their livelihood, and many steps are taken to ensure the treatment is done properly.

However, for Glambeck, the heart of the issue is that the discussion should not be about the best poison to put in B.C.’s coastal waters, but how to move fish farms out of the ocean.

“It will be a couple of years and then another chemical will be needed. We need to look for long term solutions,” she said.

“The problems of disease and sea lice are global fish farm problems that the industry has not been able to solve — and they are not trying to solve them because of concern about the environment but because it is costing them a lot of money — so the industry globally now is looking towards closed containment,” she said.

Land-based farms are the answer, for the industry and for wild fish, and both levels of government should be working at a transition strategy to support fish farm workers and communities, Glambeck said.

Two major land-based fish farms are opening in Maine, with the global trend towards land-based containment, and B.C. is going to be left out of the game if companies insist that ocean pens are the only way to go, she said.

“We are going to be stuck with 1980’s technology. Our governments need to be investing in moving this industry forward into the new millennium,” Glambeck said.

“At the same time we are losing our wild salmon and allowing them go the same way as the East Coast cod. All the markers are there, the science is there to show we really need to intervene and get these farms out of the ocean,” she said.

Doug Donaldson, Minister of Forests, Land and Natural Resource Operations, who is in charge of provincial aquaculture tenures, has said that the province is interested in moving to closed containment and, with 22 fish farm tenures coming due for renewal in June, both the industry and environmental groups will be watching closely.

Image: Atlantic salmon farm in Clayoquot Sound. Photo: Clayoquot Action

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.

There are so many problems with B.C.’s current environmental assessment process that a review, announced Wednesday by Environment Minister George Heyman, will almost certainly mean improvements, say environmental groups.

Heyman said it is clear that the public has lost trust in the process, leading to conflict and uncertainty and government’s priorities are working with First Nations and ensuring the process is science-based.

“We’ll be working with Indigenous groups at every step of the revitalization process,” Heyman said.

“Our government wants to ensure we have a process that’s transparent, science-based, timely and provides early indications of the likelihood of success. This work will also contribute to our government’s commitment to fully implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” he said.

An overhaul of the process that decides whether major resource and development projects should proceed, will be spearheaded by a 12-member advisory committee, led by ecologist Bruce Fraser, former chair of the Forest Practices Board and the provincial Task Force on Species at Risk, and Lydia Hwitsum, former Cowichan Tribes chief and former chair of the First Nations Health Council.

Other committee members include First Nations, industry and union representatives and specialists in impact assessment, climate change and renewable energy.

The committee will release a discussion paper in May, including feedback from the Environmental Assessment Office, which will be holding government-to-government meetings with First Nations and meeting with industry, local governments and non-governmental organizations.

After a public comment period, the government will introduce reforms late fall. Priorities include enhancing public confidence, transparency and “protecting the environment while supporting sustainable economic development,” says a government news release.

Assessments already underway will continue under the current system.

“There have been too many instances where development has failed to ensure the health and safety of our local communities. This has left communities and First Nations with no choice but to use the courts to advocate for their own protection.” https://t.co/rjovpT4fuO

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) March 8, 2018

B.C.’s environmental assessment process brewing controversy

Controversies over environmental assessments in B.C., combined with the previous Liberal government’s increasing reliance on industry professionals for advice — something now under review by the province — have included the Site C dam, the Mount Polley tailings dam collapse and approval of the Woodfibre LNG facility on Howe Sound.

A high-profile conflict erupted after approval of a contaminated soil dump near Shawnigan Lake, a battle that pitted the community against the former B.C. Liberal government and revealed deep flaws in the assessment process, such as the “independent” engineering company being paid by the proponent.

B.C. Green Party MLA for Cowichan Valley Sonia Furstenau, who was at the heart of the fight against the soil dump, said the review is a first step in restoring public trust in the environmental assessment process.

ICYMI: Embattled Taskeo Mine Permits Show Why B.C. Needs an Environmental Assessment Overhaul

“There have been too many instances where development has failed to ensure the health and safety of our local communities. This has left communities and First Nations with no choice but to use the courts to advocate for their own protection,” she said in a statement.

“A robust environmental assessment process that includes adequate consultation and thorough scientific, evidence-based analysis will avoid costly legal challenges and save government from dealing with expensive clean-ups when projects go awry.”

A strong process will also provide greater certainty for industry, Furstenau said.

Ecosystems, cumulative effects should be considered in assessments

Gavin Smith, West Coast Environmental Law staff lawyer, said the move to overhaul the system is sorely needed as the current model is not working.

“It’s time for a new approach, one that safeguards ecosystems, recognizes indigenous jurisdiction, helps B.C. meet its climate commitments and responds to community voices,” he said.

A recent paper by WCEL examined flaws in the system such as weak public participation, the failure to consider the cumulative effects of development and the failure to recognize First Nations as decision-makers in their territories.

The review has the potential to ensure better decisions about projects such as mines and pipelines and to protect against “death by a thousand cuts” from the combined effects of may developments in a region, Smith said.

Peter McCartney, Wilderness Committee climate campaigner, echoed the long overdue theme and pointed to the Woodfibre decision as an example of valid concerns being ignored.

Bringing First Nations into the process and transparency around how public comment is taken into account should be priorities, McCartney said.

“And there needs to be a route to ‘no’ in this process,” he said.

Instead of looking at mitigation for problems such as putting a gravel mine in a salmon spawning area, there needs to be a clear ultimatum, early in the process, that says the project will not go ahead, he said.

ICYMI: B.C. Urged to Review Industry-Funded Science Behind Approval of Gravel Mine

Jens Wieting, Sierra Club B.C. Forest and Climate Campaigner, is cautiously optimistic that the plethora of problems with environmental assessments can be fixed.

“First, we need a climate test as part of environmental assessments because that will show us that some of the projects are inconsistent with our goals to stabilize the climate. That is true for LNG terminals and the Kinder Morgan pipeline,” he said.

Also, the entire ecosystem must be considered when a project is proposed.

“Ecosystems and endangered species are already under pressure and industrial development can be the tipping point. Look at the southern resident orcas — we know the Kinder Morgan tanker traffic would lead to extinction,” Wieting said.

Science-based decisions are needed and, if a project leads to extinction or the collapse of an ecosystem, it must be rejected, he said.

The overhaul of the provincial environmental assessment process comes after an announcement that the federal process is being streamlined.

A new Impact Assessment Agency will be tasked with carrying out reviews of all major projects, with a mandate to include health and social impacts and long-term effects on Indigenous people. Simultaneously the National Energy Board will be replaced by the Canadian Energy Regulator.

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.

No, it wasn’t a weird dream, Alberta actually announced a boycott of B.C. wine on Tuesday.

The announcement by Premier Rachel Notley is just the latest move in an inter-provincial spat over the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, which would carry oil from Alberta to B.C.

It started with last week’s proposal by the B.C. government to guard against a potential oil spill. The province announced it will set up an independent scientific advisory panel to look at how diluted bitumen can be safely transported and cleaned up, if spilled.

Until the “behaviour of spilled bitumen can be better understood” B.C. will restrict increases in transportation of the substance through the province. Diluted bitumen is a mixture of thick unrefined oil from the oilsands and natural gas condensate, which acts as a thinner (and is also extremely explosive as recently witnessed in the Sanchi tanker explosion.)

Notley retaliated almost immediately, saying she was ending electricity trade negotiations with British Columbia. But yesterday the Globe and Mail revealed electricity talks had actually broken down last year.

What happened next is one of the more bizarre twists in Canadian politics in recent memory. Instead of reaching for a glass of wine, Notley came up with a real threat this time and announced the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission will immediately halt the import of all wines from its western neighbour. Apparently Albertans drank more than 17 million bottles of B.C. wine last year (for those who are counting, that’s nearly four bottles of wine for every man, woman and child in Alberta).

You could be excused for being a bit confused by how we got to this point. How did a discussion about oil spill risk and pipelines so quickly degenerate into one about non-existent electricity negotiations and alcohol? What is this really about? What’s fact and what’s fiction?

Let’s start with the oil spill risk, since that’s where all this fun began.

In 2015 the Royal Society of Canada identified seven major knowledge gaps when it comes to the risk of a diluted bitumen spill in water.

As of right now, it’s not clear whether the substance will sink or be suspended in water if spilled.

In 2010, an Enbridge pipeline ruptured, spilling nearly three million litres of dilbit into a tributary of the Kalamazoo river where it mixed with sediment on the river’s bottom, triggering one of the most expensive onshore oil spill cleanup efforts in U.S. history.

Despite that, a 2012 Enbridge study found dilbit did not sink in a laboratory environment. Then in 2014, a report released by the federal government found dilbit sinks when mixed with sediment.

Didn’t someone already consider all this before approving the pipeline?

Kinda. The National Energy Board (NEB) review of the Trans Mountain project discussed the possibility of a marine oil spill and determined that the risks “are acceptable.”

But it also clearly signalled that it was making no recommendations about anything relating to shipping. Take this statement from page 18 of its recommendation report: “The Board conducted an environmental assessment of the Project (as stated above, the Board does not regulate marine shipping and the increased Project-related marine shipping is not part of the Project).”

This is how the board got around considering impacts on endangered marine species, such as the southern resident orcas.

The National Energy Board also didn’t consider the upstream greenhouse gas emissions related to producing the oil to fill the pipeline. A ministerial panel set up after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took office attempted to address gaps in the original review and issued a report that posed six key questions, including: “Can construction of a new Trans Mountain Pipeline be reconciled with Canada’s climate change commitments?”

There is no clear understanding of how that report factored into cabinet’s decision to approve the pipeline.

All of which is to say: when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says his government made a “science based” decision, you’ve got to take it with a grain of salt.

But isn’t B.C. already transporting diluted bitumen?

Yes, it is, but to understand the current controversy, you need to rewind to 1953, when the original Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline started operation.

There was no oilsands development at that time, so the pipeline was transporting conventional oil. Decades later, when the pipeline began transporting diluted bitumen, there was no formal consideration given to the fact a new substance was being shipped through the pipe — hence the current controversy.

The new Trans Mountain pipeline would increase the system’s capacity from 300,000 barrels a day to 890,000 barrels a day.

Notley doesn’t think B.C. should have a say over what goes in the pipeline.

“They have every right to talk about protecting their environment and to work on protecting their environment and come up with best practices for marine safety and otherwise, but they don’t have the right to tell Alberta what does or does not go into that pipeline,” she told CBC.

The pipeline, Notley argues, is key to protecting Alberta’s economy from the stifling effects of a lack of export options. But while Alberta is worried about its economy, B.C. is worried about its own.

“The potential for a diluted bitumen spill already poses significant risk to our inland and coastal environment and the thousands of existing tourism and marine harvesting jobs,” B.C.’s Minister of Environment George Heyman said last week. “British Columbians rightfully expect their government to defend B.C.’s coastline and our inland waterways, and the economic and environmental interests that are so important to the people in our province.”

Here’s What Alberta’s Wine Boycott is Really About https://t.co/TlBrVp4tD6 #oilsands #bcpoli #ableg #wineboycott #climate pic.twitter.com/T1NT83urTI

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) February 7, 2018

But, here’s the thing: the pipeline has become about much more than the oil that runs through it.

Let’s start with Indigenous rights.

Several B.C. First Nations have been steadfastly opposed to the construction of another oil pipeline through their territory. While Notley was dominating the headlines on Tuesday, the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation — which is also challenging Trans Mountain in court — was launching a call for mass demonstration to protest the pipeline.

The federal and provincial governments has committed to respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which includes the principle that First Nations be afforded the right to free, prior and informed consent over projects that impact their traditional territory.

At a town hall event in Nanaimo last week, Trudeau said: “It is in the national interest to move forward with the Kinder Morgan pipeline and we will be moving forward with the Kinder Morgan pipeline.”

Pipeline battles have become a proxy for the larger climate change debate.

Repeat after me: It’s an export pipeline. It’s an export pipeline. It’s an export pipeline.

Any argument that starts with “that B.C. wine was shipped in a truck using Alberta oil” or “how do you think all you West Coast hippies are going to get to work?” is fundamentally flawed.

Things Canada has control over: its own demand for oil. Its supply of oil to the world.

On the demand side, Canada’s consumption of heavy crude oil is pretty steady, according to the National Energy Board’s energy supply and demand projections to 2040.

NEB Supply and Demand Balance to 2040. The green line is exports, the red line is domestic use.

The crux of the climate debate over Trans Mountain is about the supply side: at a time in history when we know we need to leave 80 per cent of known fossil fuels in the ground to stand a chance of limiting catastrophic climate change, should we be expanding extraction and building new infrastructure to export that oil?

How you answer that question likely factors into how you feel about this pipeline brouhaha — especially if you don’t live on the coast, where an oil spill is the primary concern.

But if we don’t provide the world the oil, won’t someone else?

Some people argue this type of “supply side environmentalism” (fighting fossil fuels at their source) is flawed and that if Canada doesn’t provide the world with oil, someone else will.

Other people say this type of strategy is the only thing that created the space for any meaningful conversation to happen around oilsands and climate policy.

“Climate change is inherently difficult to organize around; it’s big, abstract, and incremental. By the same token, broad, economy-wide policies to address it are also big, abstract, and incremental,” David Roberts wrote for Vox in an excellent piece about backlash to Keystone XL climate activism.

Indeed, if you rewind just a few years, the Alberta government had very little interest in reducing the environmental impacts of the oilsands — from the liability of the toxic tailings lakes to the carbon emissions.

But now that Notley’s NDP government has made some progress on the climate file — implementing a carbon tax, putting a cap on oilsands emissions — some people think the opposition to pipelines should stop and environmentalists should move on to other strategies. That overlooks the inherent challenges of campaigning on climate change.

“If …  they can get hundreds of thousands of people in the street for a revenue-neutral carbon tax, they are welcome to try,” Roberts wrote.

Given what we know about fossil fuels and climate change “there have got to be some decisions made somewhere not to dig it up, not to build distribution infrastructure for it — to leave it in the ground,” Roberts writes.

Should that place be Alberta? Well, that depends on whether you’re an Alberta premier up for re-election in a year or if you’re a B.C. premier with a coastal economy at risk.

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.

British Columbia won’t allow any increase in shipments of diluted bitumen through the province until the results of a scientific inquiry into the risks of oil spills in marine environments is completed, according to an announcement from the B.C. government on Tuesday.  

“We are proposing we restrict the transport of diluted bitumen until we hear back from the B.C. scientific community about the impacts of a spill and what we would need to mitigate that,” B.C. Environment Minister George Heyman told DeSmog Canada.

Diluted bitumen is a mixture of bitumen — the unrefined, thickest form of petroleum extracted from Alberta’s oilsands —  and natural gas condensate — the same substance the Iranian tanker Sanchi was carrying when it collided with another ship in the East China Sea. Condensate is added to allow the viscous substance to flow through pipelines.

The announcement has major implications for the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline.

Jessica Clogg, executive director and senior counsel of West Coast Environmental Law, celebrated the manoeuvre as “courageous.”

“Effectively the province has said if the science doesn’t show that you can clean up a dilbit spill safely and effectively then Kinder Morgan may never be able to turn the taps on, even if they can get the pipeline built,” Clogg told DeSmog Canada.

The announcement comes alongside a suite of new proposed regulations under B.C.’s Environmental Management Act to improve oil spill response and recovery.

Heyman said the move is a part of the government’s promise to employ every tool in the toolbox to protect British Columbia from a diluted bitumen, or dilbit, spill.

“Effectively the province has said if the science doesn’t show that you can clean up a dilbit spill safely and effectively then Kinder Morgan may never be able to turn the taps on, even if they can get the pipeline built.” – Jessica Clogg, @WCELaw https://t.co/fZdnnmT8sD

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) January 30, 2018

“Clearly as a province B.C. is not responsible for regulating vessel traffic but we do have authority to look at the impact of a spill if it lands on the coastline or a spill if it lands in local waterways,” Heyman said.

“What I’m determined to do is show British Columbians that what they expect from us is going to be delivered. We are going to do everything in our power to protect our coastline.”

The existing Trans Mountain oil pipeline runs from Hardisty, Alta., to Burnaby, B.C. Kinder Morgan’s proposal to build a new pipeline on a similar route would boost capacity from 300,000 barrels per day to 890,000 barrels per day, increasing the number of oil tankers in B.C.’s waters seven-fold from around 60 to 400 each year.

The project received federal approval — with 157 requirements — in November 2016, but faces strong opposition from First Nations and municipalities along the proposed pipeline route.

B.C. to address knowledge gaps in dilbit spills

In 2015 the Royal Society of Canada released a study that identified seven major knowledge gaps when it comes to the risk of a diluted bitumen spill in water.

“We want the advisory panel to look at the Royal Society of Canada information gaps and do it very specifically in a way that addresses conditions in British Columbia, with B.C. interests in mind and considering the different forms that heavy oil could be transported through B.C. via, rail, truck and pipeline,” Heyman said.

Christianne Wilhelmson, executive director of Georgia Strait Alliance, said today’s announcement is proof B.C. acknowledges “diluted bitumen behaves differently than conventional oil.”

“The best available science says it can sink or be suspended in water,” Wilhelmson said. “Currently, there is no effective technology that exists to clean it up, making prevention the only safe approach to protect our local waters, communities, economies and ecosystems.”

The behaviour of dilbit in water has become a touchstone issue in the debate about building new oilsands pipelines. While a 2012 Enbridge study found dilbit did not sink in a laboratory environment, a 2014 report released by the federal government found dilbit sinks when mixed with sediment.

In 2010 an Enbridge pipeline ruptured, spilling nearly three million litres of dilbit into a tributary of the Kalamazoo river where it mixed with sediment on the river’s bottom, triggering one of the most expensive onshore oil spill cleanup efforts in U.S. history.

“A pipeline rupture over salmon-bearing streams would be extremely detrimental to some already weak and declining salmon stocks,” Wilhelmson said, “regardless of whether the polluter is required to pay significant restitution costs.”

B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver welcomed the plan to do further scientific research.

“I look forward to the new panel providing complete, robust and accurate information on this matter to the minister that reinforces that which we already know — that there is no way currently to adequately respond to a spill of diluted bitumen.”

“We simply to not know enough to properly assess the risk and potential damages associated with a diluted bitumen spill in the Salish Sea,” Weaver said in a statement.

The province will release an intentions paper in February to solicit feedback on the restriction of dilbit transportation as well as new regulations related to spill response times, localized response plans for B.C.’s unique geographic regions and compensation.

Proposed regulations a boon to protect Indigenous rights, at risk species

The province’s move could provoke legal backlash from Kinder Morgan, Clogg said, but “by standing up for British Columbians, B.C. is reducing other types of risks.”

The new regulations could ease pressure in ongoing and potential legal battles to protect Indigenous rights and species at risk.

“It’s not aimed at Kinder Morgan in any way,” Clogg said. “It’s a regulation that applies across the board, to rail, pipelines —  it’s very much focused on provincial jurisdiction.”

“The Environmental Management Act is directed at protecting the environment, species as well as people and human communities from toxic substances, that is what this is about,” Clogg said.

ICYMI: How Canada is Driving Its Endangered Species to the Brink of Extinction

By asserting jurisdictional authority, B.C. may be setting the stage for better protections for species at risk, especially the remaining 76 members of the endangered southern killer whale population, which is not expected to survive the increase in tanker traffic from Trans Mountain.

The federal government’s decision to approve the pipeline is a violation of the Species at Risk Act, according to project opponents currently fighting its approval in the courts.

Canada’s Species at Risk Act is meant to protect the critical habitat of endangered species, regardless of plans for industrial projects. . But Canada’s track record on protecting species at risk is poor and, so far, rules haven’t been strong enough to prevent proposed projects from moving forward, despite impacts to endangered species.

This winter the independent scientific panel responsible for monitoring species at risk recommended the federal government add B.C.’s struggling sockeye salmon populations to the federal Species at Risk registry. The Trans Mountain pipeline has been identified as a significant risk to sockeye salmon.

ICYMI: We Exposed Sockeye Salmon to Diluted Bitumen. Here’s What We Found.

“The way I see it legally, B.C. has the right and responsibility to look after things within its jurisdiction,” Clogg said.

“We live in an era of collaborative federalism and really when the review and federal go-ahead was given it was with a number of conditions, which included the Kinder Morgan project having to follow provincial and federal laws and permitting processes,” she said.

“All B.C. can do is act according to its responsibilities, which it’s clearly done here.”

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.

As Valerie Murray realized she was witnessing the end of grizzly bear hunting in B.C. she burst into tears.

After years of tirelessly campaigning to stop the trophy hunt, Murray, a founder of Justice for B.C. Grizzlies, could hardly believe that the provincial government was not only banning grizzly bear trophy hunting, but closing the loophole that would have allowed hunting for meat, provided perceived trophies such as the paws, head, hide and penis bone were not taken.

“I just had to weep. People are almost afraid to believe it. Way-to-go for listening NDP. They knew they couldn’t monitor it, so they did the right thing,” Murray said.

The surprise was echoed by Chris Genovali, Raincoast Conservation Foundation executive director.

“Wow. That’s amazing,” said Genovali, who, before the news broke, was preparing to write a news release castigating the government for allowing the meat loophole to stand.

“To hear that they have responded to the input of stakeholders, scientists and a whole range of people who did not support the concept of packing the meat out is just tremendous… It is just an amazing thing to see the government respond and that (consultations) were not just a public relations exercise,” Genovali said.

ICYMI: 87% of B.C. Grizzly Deaths Due to Trophy Hunting, Records Reveal

The government announced in August that the grizzly trophy hunt would end November 30 and that no grizzly bear hunting would be allowed in the Great Bear Rainforest, but said it would hold consultations on regulations to support the sustenance hunt.

That brought a flood of reaction from British Columbians who believed the trophy hunt would continue in the guise of a meat hunt — a viewpoint supported by advertisements on the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. website where 2018 spring and fall grizzly hunts were promoted in the usual way, with prices ranging from $20,000 to $25,000.

“They are truly a once-in-a-lifetime trophy,” said one site.

The government received 4,180 emails of which almost 80 per cent wanted a total ban on grizzly hunting, Environment Minister George Heyman and Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations Minister Doug Donaldson announced Monday.

“British Columbians told us in no uncertain terms, very clearly, how strongly they feel about protecting grizzly bears and grizzly bear habitat,” Heyman said.

“Protecting this iconic species is simply the right thing to do,” he said, adding that the new rules will leave no room for confusion between a trophy hunt and a food hunt.

First Nations will continue to be allowed to harvest for food, social or ceremonial purposes or treaty rights, but that impact is expected to be minimal, especially as Coastal First Nations led efforts to halt the hunt in the Great Bear Rainforest.

Vernon Brown, a councillor with Kitasoo/Xai’xais Nation, which has a successful bear-viewing operation in Klemtu, said the government announcement was “overwhelming, emotional and amazing.”

The first priority for Kitasoo/Xai’xais is always conservation of all resources, Brown said.

As some look at the financial impact of losing the grizzly hunt, the success of the Klemtu tourist operation, which includes the Spirit Bear Lodge and offers employment to community members, could serve as a model for other aboriginal communities, he suggested.

Between 250 and 300 bears a year are killed by resident and non-resident hunters. A recent Suzuki Foundation investigation found that hunters killed 12,026 grizzlies between 1975 — the first year that records were kept — and 2016.

Government figures put the B.C. grizzly population at 15,000 grizzly animals, but that number is questioned by some scientists, who believe it is considerably less, and nine of the province’s grizzly bear populations are on the verge of elimination.

Donaldson said although it is clear British Columbians do not support killing grizzly bears, he knows hunting is important to British Columbians and offered reassurances that the hunting culture would continue to be supported to government. “Transition” help, such as assisting with a switch to bear-viewing and promoting other hunting opportunities, will be offered to guide outfitters, he said.

In addition to immediately banning the grizzly hunt, the government will be implementing recommendations from Auditor General Carol Bellringer’s highly-critical report into the province’s management of grizzly bears.

ICYMI: B.C. Bungled Grizzly Bear Management: Auditor General

Those recommendations include improving monitoring of populations, developing an adequately funded inventory of bears, developing clear policies for bear viewing, finding better ways to conserve habitat and reviewing wildlife management in B.C.

“In 2018 we will embark on a full consultation process of B.C.’s overall wildlife management strategy,” Donaldson said.

The grizzly bear management strategy will include looking at excessive access to habitat, Heyman said.

Bellringer’s report found that there are 600,000 kilometres of resource access roads cutting into grizzly habitat, with about 10,000 kilometres added every year.

While groups who have fought to stop the hunt are celebrating the government decision, Jesse Zeman, B.C. Wildlife Federation director of fish and wildlife restoration programs, said he finds it “terrifying” that the government is making decisions based on polls rather than science and he fears that other species such as wolves and black bears will be next on the list.

“I think we will be seeing a broader narrative. The dialogue is already changing,” he said.

But, for Zeman, what irks him most is that government changed the rules around the consultation process.

“We were told the hunt itself would continue and the discussion was more about what to do with the trophy parts. . . .We have a major issue around consultation and democratic proceedings,” he said.

Zeman suspects the government wanted to end the hunt and promising a meat hunt and then saying they were consulting was simply an incremental way getting to the decision.

“I think it is terrifying that they can ask about consultation and set the goalposts and then move the goalposts. That’s the spooky bit,” he said.

Trish Boyum, a wildlife photographer and operator of an eco-charter boat, has spent years working to protect grizzlies and knows, first hand, that tourists want to see live bears.

“I am pinching myself. This is just so exciting I am hardly able to talk,” she said.

“This is absolutely huge and good to see that the government is listening. That wasn’t evident after the Site C decision.”

It is possible that there will now be pressure to end trophy hunting of species such as black bears and wolves, Boyum said.

“I don’t believe we should be killing any animal as a trophy… My background is in social work and killing animals for fun is not a good sign,” she said.

Guide Outfitters Association of B.C executive director Scott Ellis did not respond to calls from 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.

Footage of bloody discharge being released into B.C.’s coastal waters from farmed-fish processing plants by photographer Tavish Campbell has made international headlines and prompted the promise of further investigation from both provincial and federal governments.

But critics say that while governments are eager to stem a wave of concerns arising from the footage, not enough is being done to protect B.C.’s threatened wild salmon populations from the threats of the farmed-salmon industry that stem from the use of open net pens.

In addition to the footage, Campbell collected samples of the discharge that laboratory testing found contained Piscene Reovirus, a disease carried in an estimated 80 per cent of Atlantic farmed salmon on the B.C. coast. The virus is linked to the presence of heart and skeletal muscle inflammation, a deadly condition found in B.C. wild salmon stocks.

B.C. Environment Minister George Heyman said the ministry dispatched inspectors to the Brown’s Bay processing plant near Campbell River to determine the contents of the effluent being released and take further samples if necessary.

“I think the bottom line for us is we want to make sure anything being dumped into our oceans is free of contaminants, fee of pathogens and not a threat to wild salmon,” Heyman told DeSmog Canada in an interview.

The Brown’s Bay processing plant received a discharge permit from the B.C. government in 1989, granting the company permission to release 28,000 litres of effluent every day. There are 109 fish processing plants in B.C.; if they are all releasing roughly the same as the Brown’s Bay plant, that’s ten Olympic swimming pools of effluent being released into B.C. waters daily.

The Brown’s Bay plant was inspected in 2013, and found to be out of compliance with the province’s environmental laws. According to Heyman no further inspection took place at the time.

The permit, which Heyman said does not reflect modern conditions and standards, is currently under review. He added there are older permits for additional fish processing plants the government will also place under review.

“We are looking at conditions that reflect today’s reality and today’s expectation and that’s that what is dumped in the ocean is clean and not a threat to wild salmon,” Heyman said. “So we’ll be looking at it from that perspective as well as from First Nations who are being consulted we’ll look at best practices around the world around discharges into the ocean.”

Bloodwater Not Only Threat Wild Salmon Face

Campbell said that while a review of B.C.’s out-of-date permits is warranted, the release of contaminated effluent is just one threat the farmed-salmon industry poses to wild salmon stocks.

“The bloodwater is certainly a point source for infection but if we get rid of the bloodwater the problem doesn’t go away because ultimately these juvenile wild fish are still swimming past the open net pens and picking up these viruses and diseases,” Campbell told DeSmog Canada.

Aaron Hill, ecologist and wild salmon policy analyst for the Watershed Wild Salmon Society, agreed.

“It’s really hard to quantify exactly where this wastewater discharge lands on the threat matrix but we know that salmon farms host a number of viruses and parasites that are transmitted to wild fish and harm wild fish,” Hill told DeSmog Canada.

“Many of our salmon populations are in really bad shape due to a number of factors,” Hill said, saying climate change is considered the number one threat to wild salmon.

“We can’t flip a switch and make the oceans more productive or make rivers cooler and safer for fish. But we can get these farms out of the ocean and onto land. We can stop bloody diseased waste from being piped into the water.”

Many of the companies operating farmed salmon open net pens in B.C. are Norwegian, the country behind many of the farmed salmon operations worldwide. Currently Norway does not allow for the discharge of fish processing waste into the ocean.

B.C.’s Environmental Monitoring and Enforcement Weak: Furstenau

British Columbia has a poor record of monitoring and enforcing its own environmental laws due to staff and budget cuts, according to Green Party MLA Sonia Furstenau.

“While I appreciate the Minister of Environment’s immediate response to the videos, we need a government that works to proactively protect our environment, not one that waits for the public to prove that we’ve got a problem,” Furstenau said during Wednesday’s question period in the house.

“Is the minister going to expand his review to cover every plant that releases effluent into wild salmon habitat to ensure it’s not contaminated, or will Mr. Campbell need to keep testing the blood water?”

The B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations is responsible for leases and tenures for fish farms. Ocean discharge permits are managed by the province’s environment ministry.

However, regulation and promotion of the aquaculture industry falls to federal jurisdiction under the Fisheries Act.

Heyman said his ministry has been in contact with Environment Canada as well as local First Nations to discuss the effluent permits and Campbell’s footage.

“It’s important that all parties with jurisdiction take a unified approach to protecting wild salmon. That’s our expectation and we hope the federal government will join us and work with us and First Nations to protect wild salmon.”

Federal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr said his ministry is also investigating the results of recent samples taken from the discharge pipes — and is open to potential changes under the Fisheries Act that would prevent the release of contaminants that could further threaten B.C.’s struggling wild salmon populations.

Campbell said he doesn’t see a way for open net fish farms and healthy wild salmon stocks to coexist. He hopes recent outrage over the outfall pipes will add to growing calls to move the aquaculture industry on land.

“I think the writing is on the wall for this industry. They can’t keep continuing to operate in the way they have been with open net pens in the water,” Campbell said.

“There’s too much opposition to it and there’s too much science saying if that’s going to happen we’re basically sacrificing our wild stocks.”

Permit 8124 – Brown Bay Fish Processing Plant by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

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

In October, B.C. Premier John Horgan made a visit to the Rio Tinto Alcan smelter on the banks of the Douglas Channel in Kitimat.

He praised the facility for being “a great example of how companies can improve conditions for workers and reduce pollution all while improving their bottom line.”

What he didn’t mention was the ongoing battle at Rio Tinto Alcan over a provincial permit that allowed the company to increase sulphur dioxide pollution by more than 50 per cent, or the union representing 800 workers at the smelter that appealed that permit, saying the increase in pollution was a direct threat to their health.

Exposure to sulphur dioxide aggravates the respiratory systems of asthmatics and is known to negatively affect the respiratory systems of children and the elderly.

At the heart of the controversy is a decision by the B.C. Ministry of Environment in 2013, which allowed the smelter to increase its sulphur dioxide emissions into the Kitimat airshed during a $5 billion expansion project. The ministry approved the increase in emissions under an environmental monitoring plan that would measure, but not prevent, the impacts of the pollution on human health until 2019, when the plan would be revisited.

B.C. did not require the company to install scrubbers, commonly used in smelters to remove airborne pollutants from emissions, a decision that still bothers Sean O’Driscoll, president of the smelter’s union, Unifor local 2301.

“Having a monitoring program ongoing, with suitable human health mitigation plans required to be implemented at a later day, has folks feeling like they, their children and neighbours are being treated like guinea pigs,” O’Driscoll told DeSmog Canada.

ICYMI: Rio Tinto Alcan Polluting Kitimat Airshed to Save Money, Tribunal Hears

ICYMI: Rio Tinto Alcan Externalizing Air Pollution onto Kitimat Households, Says Expert Witness

The B.C. Environmental Appeal Board previously told the union it had no right to challenge the environmental effects monitoring plan. But the court of appeals has now overruled that finding, kicking the original appeal — first launched in 2014 — back into action.

“This [appeal] opens a path for Unifor to challenge the mitigation plan on the basis that it is insufficient to protect workers and their families from growing levels of sulphur dioxide,” Jason Gratl, lawyer for local 2301, told DeSmog Canada.

O’Driscoll said the company was essentially given permission to subject workers and the community to a health risk to minimize costs.

“Our full expectations of the new Horgan NDP government is that they take another look at this issue and put the health of communities first,” O’Driscoll told DeSmog Canada. “Industry and stringent environmental standards need not be mutually exclusive.”

Gratl said the appeal will address whether or not it was appropriate for the government to approve the pollution increase without a clear plan to protect human health.

Governments increasingly approve projects with the explicit plan to work out details after the fact, Gratl said, adding pipeline approvals that come with more than 100 conditions are a prime example.

“What happened with Rio Tinto Alcan is the government said ‘let’s start making aluminum and we’ll figure out the environmental and social issues later.’ And they keep trying to push these issues further down the road.”

BC Using #Kitimat Smelter Workers as ‘Guinea Pigs’ for Air Pollution Monitoring, Union Says https://t.co/CcjzYKZcOE #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 6, 2017

Experts-for-Hire at Heart of Rio Tinto Alcan Concerns

Chris Tollefson, lawyer with the Pacific Centre for Environmental Law and Litigation, brought a previous challenge against the Rio Tinto Alcan on behalf of two Kitimat teachers: Lis Stannus and Emily Towes.

In 2015 Tollefson and his co-counsels provided an Environmental Appeal Board tribunal with evidence of alleged regulatory capture.

Regulators and statutory decision-makers within the Ministry of Environment were inappropriately close with Rio Tinto Alcan and relied heavily on science and analysis provided by the company’s hired scientists, Tollefson argued.

Tollefson said this case gives rise to the problems of “professional reliance” — the practice of using proponent-hired experts rather than independent analysts during environmental assessments.

ICYMI: ‘This is B.C.’s Version of the Duffy Scandal’: Government Officials Refer to Rio Tinto Alcan as ‘Client’ in Work Journal

ICYMI: Tribunal Hears Regulatory Capture Behind B.C.’s Decision to Increase Rio Tinto Alcan Pollution in Kitimat Airshed

In August, the B.C. government ordered a review of the professional reliance system, which rose in popularity in B.C. under the tenure of the BC Liberals as cuts to the civil service were made.

Tollefson said the reopening of Unifor’s appeal will start a new discovery process that may provide crucial insight into what decisions and decision-makers played a role in the permits and adaptive management plan being approved.

“We’re concerned that the Ministry of Environment relied far too heavily on Rio Tinto Alcan’s experts, on Rio Tinto’s preferred approach and did not subject the environmental effects management plan to the kind of rigorous scrutiny that it deserved; and that it rushed its approval of that management plan in a way that compromised its scientific integrity,” Tollefson said.

‘We Feel Like An Experiment’

Tollefson also said the appeal provides new ground for his clients to relaunch their legal challenge.

Stannus said that is something she plans to pursue.

“Since this permit was approved, we have learned a lot more about the problems of professional reliance, a lot more about the health impacts of sulphur dioxide,” Stannus said.

Kitimat resident Lis Stannus poses for a photogaph with Premier John Horgan during his October visit to Kitimat. “I walked up to Horgan and I said, ‘I’m from Kitimat and I’m worried about sulphur dioxide pollution,’ ” Stannus recounted to DeSmog Canada. Photo: Province of B.C. via Flickr

“It’s a little shocking to me that this is allowed to proceed. We feel like an experiment and I don’t recall ever giving consent to this experiment.”

Stannus said her ears perk up whenever she hears the new government criticize the practice of professional reliance.

“But they never bring Rio Tinto Alcan up,” Stannus told DeSmog Canada. “They never mention the fact that the project’s studies were bought and paid for by Rio Tinto.”

Kitimat Residents Try to Raise Concerns with NDP Government

Stannus said she sought out the premier on his last visit to the area.

Stannus and a community organization she belongs to, the Kitimat-Terrace Clean Air Coalition, have sent three letters to B.C. Environment Minister George Heyman, expressing their fears that Rio Tinto Alcan’s permit to increase sulphur dioxide emissions is a threat to their health. The group has repeatedly asked for meetings with the minister, Stannus said.

“I asked [the Premier] why they won’t meet with us and he said it is because they have only been in power for 100 days,” she said.

ICYMI: Kitimat Residents ‘Muzzled’ From Speaking Out On Rio Tinto Alcan’s Plan to Increase Air Pollution

In a statement to DeSmog Canada, Minister Heyman said he can “empathize with those who have concerns about air quality in their community.”

“I want to assure everyone that we will restore public confidence in government’s ability to protect our water, land and air,” Heyman said.

He added the environmental effects monitoring plan is currently under appeal with the Environmental Appeal Board.

“As such it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.”

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.

B.C.’s new Minister of Environment, George Heyman, says he identifies with the many British Columbians eager for the outcome of the single ongoing investigation into the Mount Polley mine disaster that sent 24 million cubic metres of mining waste into Quesnel Lake on August 4, 2014.

“I have spoken with the Parliamentary Secretary to the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change. We are in agreement that British Columbians deserve a rigorous and independent investigation to determine exactly what went wrong and to ensure any person or company that broke the law is held responsible,” Heyman said in a press statement released Wednesday, two days before the provincial statute of limitations for Mount Polley expires.

As B.C. approaches the three-year anniversary of the incident, British Columbians, including local residents directly impacted by the spill, have expressed disappointment that Imperial Metals, owner and operator of Mount Polley, has received no charges and no fines for the disaster, considered one of the worst environmental incidents in Canadian history.

“A disaster like this should never have happened in B.C., and it must never happen again,” Heyman said.

#MountPolley Investigation Still On, Federal Charges ‘In Play,’ Says BC Environment Minister https://t.co/p5xLwzp1Lr @GeorgeHeyman #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) August 3, 2017

As DeSmog Canada recently reported, while B.C. has reached the expiration date for provincial charges, the statute of limitations has not run out for federal charges under the Fisheries Act.

While two provincial investigations in the Mount Polley spill have been conducted, neither recommended charges or fines be levied against the company.

Yet one investigation is currently ongoing by the B.C. Conservation Service Office alongside the Department of Fisheries and Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Heyman said the current investigation is “complex and thorough.”

Information gathered during the investigation will be brought to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, “should charges be recommended,” Heyman said.

“Potential charges under the federal Fisheries Act remain very much in play and, in fact, potential penalties are more significant.”

Under the Fisheries Act, Mount Polley could face $6 million in penalties for causing harm to fish and fish habitat and an additional $6 million for dumping deleterious substances without a permit into fish bearing waters.

“While the three-year anniversary of the disaster also brings us to the statute of limitations on provincial charges, British Columbians should know the overall objective continues to be ensuring a complete investigation,” he said.

“I have full confidence in the work of these law enforcement officials and I know that many concerned British Columbians join me in looking forward to the outcome of this important investigation.” 

Image: B.C. Environment Minister George Heyman. Photo: Stephen Hui via the Pembina Institute. Used with permission.

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

Since January 1, 2017 there have been more than 50 accidental releases from pipelines and oil and gas facilities in Alberta. These spills and leaks, ranging from large to small, from hazardous to non-hazardous, happen almost every single day.

Don’t believe it? You can check for yourself via the Alberta Energy Regulator’s incident reporting dashboard where spills are documented and information about volume, location and response is made available to the public.

In B.C., however, the provincial regulator’s pipeline incident reporting page has been offline for eight months (yes, you read that correctly).

DeSmog Canada has been reporting on the missing map since October and the issue was recently taken up by the Globe and Mail.

“In a province where the public debate over increased oil pipeline capacity has consumed so much energy, the lack of transparency about the province’s management of its existing system is surprising,” wrote Justine Hunter as politicians returned for the spring sitting at the legislature.

George Heyman, environment critic for the B.C. NDP, said getting the map back online should be a priority for the province.

“It’s shocking that the portal and the online incident report would be offline for such a significant amount of time,” Heyman told DeSmog Canada.

“This is an important mechanism for British Columbians to know if a spill has happened and to seek further information on how it might impact community health, whether the release be sour gas or crude oil.”

The B.C. Oil and Gas Commission describes its pipeline incident map as providing “timely, factual information on all pipeline incidents” to ensure “companies respond effectively and that the interests of British Columbians are protected through a 24/7, 365 day per year incident response program.”

The commission regulates more than 43,000 kilometres of pipeline in the province, 6,100 kilometres of which carry crude oil or natural gas.

In a summary report for the year 2015, the commission documented 45 pipeline incidents, indicating a slight increase in crude oil pipeline spills in recent years.

While there were three crude oil pipeline spills in 2011, there were six in 2012, four in 2013, seven in 2014 and seven in 2015. Spill volumes are not released in the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission’s annual summary reports.

A spokesperson for the B.C. Ministry of Natural Gas Development said the map is offline while a new system is put in place that includes “substantial improvements to the incident map.”

Companies are legally required to report spills to the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission and pipeline performance reports are released annually, the spokesperson added.

Heyman said that’s not enough to keep the public informed.

“We know there were 45 incidents in 2015, so over this eight-month period there may have been 30 pipeline incidents in B.C. that haven’t been reported to the public,” Heyman said.

Screenshot of B.C.'s pipeline incident map webpage, October 2016.

Screenshot of B.C.'s pipeline incident map webpage, March 2017.

The problems don’t end with pipelines under provincial jurisdiction.

A 2013 CBC investigation found B.C. was home to the highest number of pipeline safety incidents for federally regulated pipelines managed by the National Energy Board between 2000 and 2013.

That investigation also found the rate of pipeline incidents nationally had doubled since the early 2000s.

“Not having this information available is disappointing especially in the context of major new pipelines proposed in B.C.,” Sophie Harrison, a campaign co-ordinator at B.C. democracy group Dogwood, told DeSmog Canada.

She said at the time the province approved the federally regulated Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline the B.C. government was insistent robust land-based spill response was in place.

“It’s hard to simply trust there’s world-leading pipeline spill response in B.C. if there isn’t real time data available to people in the province.”

“Not even having this basic level of accountability I think it speaks to the issue of public trust around the safety of pipelines in B.C.,” she said. “What we’re hearing from the B.C. government is, ‘oh just trust us.’ ”

Dermod Travis, executive director of IntegrityBC, said the current government has a problem with transparency.

“It speaks to the duplicity of a government that once promised to be the most open and transparent in Canada and has since proven to be the most secretive. It also speaks to a government that picks and chooses which laws apply to it, at its political convenience,” Travis told DeSmog Canada.

In #Alberta there’s an accidental oil “release” [read: spill] nearly everyday. In BC? We’re left in the dark https://t.co/UDOflPoSxM #bcpoli pic.twitter.com/UclwXqHx7z

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) March 3, 2017

Travis pointed to the 2013 findings of Information and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham that B.C. failed to proactively disclose information regarding a risk of harm to the environment or public health.  The commissioner found the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations withheld inspection reports from the public that showed the 80-year-old Testalinden Dam was near the end of its life and “a hazard to people and property downstream."

“This isn't a one-off failure that could be blamed on technology,” Travis said. “This is a consistent — and seemingly intentional — failure.”

In some instances government disclosure is the public’s only means of information about pipeline spills. 

In October 2016, the public learned of a large crude oil spill from a remote Alberta pipeline owned by Trilogy Energy Corp. only after the company reported the incident to the provincial regulator, which then posted (scant) information to its incident dashboard.

The company only learned of the spill after a routine helicopter inspection of the line.

B.C.’s existing pipeline infrastructure is aging, a problem some say will lead to increased incidents.

Heyman said all jurisdictions with aging pipeline infrastructure are vulnerable.

“That’s why online, real time reporting to the public is very important for releasing public information. We need to ensure the public knows what is happening so it can hold government and companies accountable,” Heyman said.

Phil Rygg, spokesperson for the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission, told DeSmog Canada “the map is expected to be available online by March 31.” The commission previously stated the map would be back online at the end of 2016. 

Image: Oil spill in Dalian, China. Photo: Peter Ma via Flickr cc 2.0

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.