Boy oh boy, what a decade! Amiright?

I mean, think about it: back in 2006 when the Conservatives under Stephen Harper hit the political stage with a minority government the world was still all worked up over Brokeback Mountain.

Destiny’s Child was still a thing. So was the anthrax scare.

Needless to say, a lot has happened since those good ol’ bad ol’ days and things are bound to change around here, what with all the “Real Change” that’s being bandied about by our new top dog.

But before we’re off to the Liberal races, let’s take a fun moment to look back at how we laughed and how we cried with Stephen Harper.

View post on imgur.com

Senate Scandal

Let’s start with a recent one, shall we? The senate scandal.

This particular moment is fresh on Canadians' minds with the much-publicized Duffy trial in August bringing to light just how amuck Harper’s senators were running in Ottawa.

A nice little peek behind the redaction-curtain was offered to all Canadians through Duffy’s kind of hilariously poorly redacted documents. The documents show he was pretty much a Mother Hen-like busy body for the oil industry and anti-environmental attack dog Vivian Krause.

The Duffy affair, which involved a prodigal $90,000 cheque that Harper maintained he knew nothing about, put the PMO in the spotlight and raised pretty damning questions about culpability and who knew what when.

Harper’s right hand man, Nigel Wright, took responsibility for the cheque, becoming just another fall guy in a long list of Harper’s sacrificial lambs.

Overall, however, the senate scandal exposed the culture of corruption and waste embodied in senators Duffy, Patrick Brazeau, Marc Harb and Pamela Wallin who all charged Canadian taxpayers for ineligible living expenses.

A full investigation by the Auditor General found 30 senators were charging the public for things they shouldn’t have and nine of these individuals were referred to the police for further investigation. 

The senate scandal tainted the reputation of a government that, back in 2006, campaigned on “cleaning up government.”

Within months of being elected in 2006, Harper introduced the Federal Accountability Act (a watered-down version of his campaign promise) that sought to “begin the process of fixing the system…to clean up government.”

Harper went on to oversee one of the most corrupt senates in Canadian history. Whoops.

Robocall Scandal

On the scandal note, let’s also recall that Harper’s Federal Accountability Act was designed to “ensure that party nomination and leadership races are conducted in a fair, transparent, and democratic manner.”

But remember the freaking robocall scandal!?

In one of the most explicit attacks on democracy in Canadian history, and the most direct attack against actual electors, the Conservative party was accused of using automated and in-person phone calls to confuse the public about where they were supposed to vote. Other calls harassed voters with late-night calls that impersonated opposition parties.

An estimated 690,000 voters were targeted with these calls.

Several investigations were launched that found the calls targeted voters who indicated they were not voting Conservative.

But an Elections Canada investigation found that, even though some of these calls were made from a computer within Conservative party headquarters and that Conservative party staffers were refusing to cooperate with the investigation, there was not enough evidence to pursue full charges against the party.

But don’t worry, there’s a fall guy: while Harper consistently maintained he had no knowledge of the calls, Michel Sona, a twenty-something junior Conservative staffer at the time, was convicted of violating the Elections Canada Act by preventing electors from exercising their right to vote.

Sona was convicted this past August to nine months in prison plus 12 months probation. The judge in Sona’s case concluded the young man did not act alone, but did not rule on any other’s involvement.

In total, the outcome of 13 Conservative seats were called into question. And guess what? The Conservatives in the 2011 election secured their majority by 13 seats.

Enemies List

Perhaps because of the way he ran things (and his penchant for employing ‘fall guys’) Stephen Harper had a lot of enemies.

But no one knew about the existence of a formal list until a leaked internal e-mail prepared for incoming ministers during a cabinet shuffle in 2013 referencing “enemy stakeholders” appeared.

A second leaked e-mail showed the PMO reached out to different ministries asking for suggestions for the blacklist.

A source told the CBC that enemy examples were provided to ministerial aides and they included environmental groups, non-profit organizations and other civic or industry associations that dared to think differently than the Harper government.

Canadians, obviously, were excited about the prospect of being on such an exclusive list.

And although the actual list itself never surfaced, I think it’s safe to speculate now just who ended up on the veritable who’s who of Canadian adversaries: pretty much every environmental organization, First Nations (just, all of them), any person or community or pet against pipelines, organizations fighting poverty (although not, interestingly, people feeding the poor), journalists, organizations fighting for free speech, probably all Muslims but definitely all Muslim women.

You get the idea.

Pipelinepalooza

It’s hard to pick a favourite best/worst moment of the Harper government when it comes to pipelines.

But the epic, protracted cross-governmental freak-out that happened around the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline hearings should probably take the cake.

About 4,000 individuals signed up to participate in the review process for Northern Gateway, something Harper and his cadre of pipeline cronies took as a personal-affront to democracy.

Then-Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver lashed out in one of the strangest acts of statecraft we’ve ever seen: he wrote an open letter to all Canadians telling us all to stop being such goddamn terrorists.

It was awkward. Oh Joe, you old kook. Unfortunately Joe lost his seat in this last election so, I’m sorry to say it Canada, but we may not see those kinds of super fun antics again. Onward and upward, right?

Prorogation Nation

Harper loved himself a prorogued Parliament. That’s because you can pretty much use prorogation to accomplish anything!

In 2008, for example, Harper prorogued (basically, suspended) Parliament to avoid a non-confidence vote.

In 2010 he prorogued Parliament again ‘for the Olympics.’ But this also had the added effect of letting him avoid an inquiry into the mistreatment of Afghan detainees. So neat!

Harper was totes in contempt of Parliament for this, but whatevs!

Harper also shut down Parliament in 2013 to avoid questions about the senate scandal.

In all Harper suspended Parliament for 181 days, setting a new record for prime ministers in Canada.

Regulation is "CRAZY!"

Last year as countries were gathering Lima, Peru, for the 20th UNFCCC climate talks, Stephen Harper said it would be “crazy” for Canada to regulate emissions from the oil and gas sector.

He added that obviously no one else in their right mind would ever do such a thing (even though it turns out A LOT of people are doing exactly such a thing literally all over the world).

Steve was too busy rockin’ out to care, tho.

Tough on Terror

The contentious anti-terrorism Bill C-51 is probably Stephen Harper's pièce de résistance. The showpiece legislation showed just how far the former Prime Minister and his voting entourage were willing to pursue a political agenda no matter how many other former prime ministers, national editorial boards, technology experts, legal scholars, civil society organizations, democracy watchdogs and outraged citizens felt it was a really, really bad idea.

Although the bill was supposed to target terrorists, it affected such a grab bag of activities (like being critical of the government, expressing yourself freely, attending protests, disliking pipelines, being indigenous…) it in effect turned everyone and their grandmother into a terrorist. 

It was perhaps Stephen Harper's greatest high and greatest low. At the height of his powers, Harper took advantage of the nation's fear in the wake of the Ottawa shooting and carried it to its lowest logical conclusion: you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists. Even our new, fresh-faced leader Justin Trudeau was caught in the shitty binary and, wanting to impress upon the good people his distain for terrorists, voted in favour of what was probably one the worst pieces of legislation in Canadian history. 

Harper had a special talent for bending the legislative process to his will. Like Emperor Palpatine, he was a universal antagonist to the end.

Adieu, Harper. Adieu.

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 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.

Mel Arnold, a federal Conservative candidate from the North Okanagan-Shuswap riding in B.C., told the CBC he remains “unconvinced” by climate science and that the role of human activity in the rise of global temperatures remains undetermined.

In an interview with the CBC’s Daybreak South radio show this week, Arnold told host Chris Walker he believes only 1.5 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions are human-caused.

Arnold also said cycles in climate could be responsible for recent changes in temperature.

"I don't know that it has been determined for sure that human activity is the main cause. It is part of the process," he told Walker. “But how much of it is actually naturally occurring, that's I think where the debate is."

"As you know, this area was once buried in kilometres of thick ice during the ice ages. And we have approximately 30-year cycles on weather conditions here. Those types of things are still in play."

Cindy Derkaz, federal Liberal candidate from the North Okanagan-Shuswap riding, said Arnold was simply toeing the Conservative Party line.

“I wasn’t surprised,” Derkaz said. “I feel that he is following a party line and bound to do that and I’ve noticed that there’s been no rebuttal of [Arnold’s statements] from the party.”

Derkaz said the science of climate change, including the role of human activity, is “unequivocal” and that constituents in her region are already feeling the effects of warmer global temperatures.

“We are experiencing some of the hottest years on record one after another. We are experiencing serious forest fire seasons, problems with our water supply drying up which leads to a diminished flow in rivers which negatively affects the return of fish.”

“These are all problems we are dealing with.”

NDP candidate Jacqui Gingras said Arnold is “actively denying climate change” and it is “outrageous and dangerous to hold the view” that humans are not contributing to increasing temperatures.

“We’ve been measuring climate change for 150 years and have been able to reconstruct climate going back 8,000 years,” Gingras said. “Thirteen of the 15 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000.”

Gingras said that researchers from Climate Central calculate that the odds of climate change not being attributable to human activity is one in 27 million.

Gingras said Arnold is apparently willing to bet against those odds.

“To the south of us in Kelowna there were terrible fires this year that had enormous costs on people's lives,” she said. “Our local industry, the forestry industry, relies on those trees.”

“We’re on the brink of something traumatic, not only locally, but globally there’s a crisis building.”

Wildfires and trees were also present on the mind of federal Green Party candidate Chris George.

“These fires have been a big issue,” George said. “All of the surrounding forests are vulnerable to beetle kill because winters don’t get cold enough to kill the insects off which means that more dry standing forests and they are more vulnerable to wildfire.”

George added that before this season’s wildfires, heavy rainfall caused mudslides in the Shuswap region.

“We basically lost our tourism season. The mudslides wiped out roads, filed our lakes and streams with mud and shut down houseboat operators.”

George said the increased intensity and frequency of both drought and heavy rainfall are “easily linked to climate change.” Both tourism and agriculture, which the area depends upon, are being “disproportionally hit” by the effects of warmer temperatures, he said.

George added he’s surprised to hear any candidates would question the impacts of human activity on the climate. “I was a bit astonished that that’s still a position out there.”

According to Environment Canada, greenhouse gasses are released into the atmosphere as a result of transportation, oil and gas development, the production of electricity, energy use in buildings, industrial and trade activities, agriculture and the production of waste.  

Andrew Weaver, climate scientists and MLA for the B.C. Green Party said the comments are “outrageous” but he is “not surprised” to hear them coming from a representative of Conservative Party.

“This is common within the Harper Tories to find people whose views are based on… I don’t know where they get their views from, but they’re not scientific,” Weaver said.

He added the statements point to the larger problem of scientific literacy in political decision-making.

“If you make decisions as a matter of faith — ‘I believe this to be true’ — it’s the beginning of the downfall of society.”

Campaign manager Linda Hawkes said Arnold was unavailable for comment.

Image: Mel Arnold via Twitter

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.

    Decision makers need information to help them make decisions. And those decisions can be best evaluated when all the facts are in. But who supplies “the facts,” and how can we trust that they are unbiased?

The traditional role of government scientists has been to provide those “facts”; as a former government scientist, it was part of my job to provide unbiased advice to decision makers in forming policy. This has become more difficult given recent legislative changes and budget cuts, as well as a shift in emphasis away from basic science and towards advancing the intellectual property interests of private industry.

These changes have made both the “doing” of government science and the communication of scientific findings from government scientists to the public far more challenging than they need to be.

Objectivity is the cornerstone of scientific investigation. Scientists seek answers to how the world works by co

nducting experiments, making observations and careful measurements without any “agenda.”

When we publish our research, it is vetted by our peers, who review it critically to determine if they could reach the same conclusions based on our approach and analysis. It’s even becoming more and more common for scientists to make their data and analysis freely available allowing anyone to examine it and see if they can draw the same conclusions.

It would seem that this objectivity matters to Canadians when it comes to making decisions. In a recent “National Survey on Energy Literacy,” Alberta Oil magazine reported that more than 50 per cent of those surveyed trusted the academic community to provide “credible and trustworthy information” about topics on oil sands development, clean energy in Canada and carbon emissions.

Less than 20 per cent of respondents said they would trust either the federal or provincial government to provide “credible and trustworthy information” on these same issues.

While the academic community is larger than just scientists, all academics are subject to the scrutiny of their peers. It’s that scrutiny that helps advance our knowledge; through debate, we can see the flaws in our understanding, and the research questions change direction as required. The goal is truth, not pushing forward an ideology.

Even though there’s a lack of trust in government, there are still credible and trustworthy people in government departments—the scientists. The scientists who work in government are subject to the same scrutiny as those in academia; they publish in academic journals, sit on graduate committees and supervise graduate students in academic departments across the country. They are objective scientists, just like their peers working at universities. They possess the same level of credibility.

So why are government scientists trusted to provide “credible and trustworthy information” to their peers, but not to the general public? Too often we hear about government scientists being denied permission to speak to media about their research—Kristi Miller and Max Bothwell are two prominent examples.

Miller, a researcher at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, was barred from speaking to the press about her findings that a virus may have contributed to the decline of B.C. salmon in 2009. The prominent journal Science published her groundbreaking study in January 2011.

Despite media interest in her work, the Privy Council Office (PCO) turned down interview requests. According to documents obtained by Postmedia News under the Access to Information Act, the PCO also vetoed a press release about the study, stating that it “was not very good, focused on salmon dying and not on the new science aspect.”

Bothwell, also a scientist at Environment Canada, is an expert on the pervasive algae didymo. In May 2014, after the journal BioScience published an article that Bothwell co-authored, a Canadian Press reporter asked for an interview with him — and that’s when 16 public affairs people from different government agencies got involved, sending more than 110 pages of emails about getting approved responses for the questions. In the end, the interview did not happen.

According to media reports, Bothwell’s study may have been considered politically sensitive because it links didymo growth to global climate change factors.

These issues around limiting communication are systemic and well ingrained in the public service. In October 2014, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada reported that 90 per cent of federal scientists feel they cannot speak freely about their work, and nearly as many (86 per cent) fear reprimand for doing so.

This fear further serves the suppression of communication to the public through self-censorship; why try to promote your work when you think doing so will hinder your career?

Trust in academics comes from the perception of providing information without bias. But even more so than academics, government scientists are keenly aware of ensuring their work is presented in a bias-free fashion. While academics may emphasize the perceived importance of their scientific work to some particular policy issue, as public servants, government scientists cannot because the science they do is only part of the formation of policy.

Whether the science supports a given policy or doesn’t, neither the work nor the scientist who conducted it can be seen as having a particular “angle.” This would call into question how that science is evaluated by the decision makers.

Given this keen need for careful consideration, you would think that government departments would be quick to promote government science and the work of its scientists.

You’d also think that they would provide the funding necessary to investigate pressing issues, and help ensure that work is conducted in a timely fashion to provide the information as it’s needed, rather than cut internationally renowned programs. It seems obvious that promoting the work of government scientists, and allowing them to become part of the public conversation, would promote the role of objective government-led science in providing Canadians with “credible and trustworthy information.”

Instead, the opposite seems very much the case, in my experience. Simple tasks like hiring summer students or travelling to a conference require form after form. These, in turn, must be approved by managers, then directors, then deputy ministers, far up the bureaucratic chain of command. It’s unreasonable and illogical. Internal research funds are limited and/or highly directed, and seeking external funding becomes more challenging with every additional level of internal approval required.

Perhaps most important, and in spite of the growing mountain of paperwork and approvals that seems to directly counteract one’s ability to dedicate time to actually conducting science, excellent, top-calibre work is published by Canadian government scientists every day.

However, this work goes largely unpromoted by the very departments that employ them, it is frequently left without comment by the scientists who conducted the studies, and all too often, it remains unnoticed by Canadians.

The Canadian public values credible and trustworthy information, and it doesn’t currently believe that our governments are in a position to provide it. A critical means of restoring the public’s trust in government is to provide more transparency into how decisions are made and how various pieces of information are weighed in the decision-making process. Some departments have mechanisms to do exactly this (e.g., the Canadian Science Advice Secretariat within Fisheries and Oceans Canada).

But transparency and accessibility in the eyes of the public are just as important in helping to restore that trust. Denying government scientists the ability to comment on their own work only makes it look like there’s something to hide, and it suggests that there is neither trust in the scientists who conducted the study to speak objectively, nor in the public to hear what the study has to say from the person most qualified to discuss it.

Having a well-informed public is a critical component to a functioning democracy, as a society of decision makers. To consider that the public does not trust its own government as a credible source of information should be of great concern to everyone. Any relationship counsellor will tell you that trust is a two-way street.

Maybe if the Canadian government showed some trust in its scientists, that might help restore the public’s trust in the government.

Michael Rennie (@not_klaatu) is an assistant professor at Lakehead University. He was a research scientist with Fisheries and Oceans Canada in the Central and Arctic Region from 2010 to 2014.

This piece originally appeared in Canadian Journalists for Free Expression's 2014-15 Review of Free Expression in 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.

This post originally appeared on the Dogwood Initiative blog.

I should confess: I talk to lamp fixtures.

I wink at ceiling vents, sing to the dashboard in my car, apologize to the people eavesdropping on my phone calls for how boring my conversations are.

I can’t pinpoint when this running joke began, but it was sometime after I left television journalism and began to publicly criticize the government. Now that I work at Dogwood Initiative — where we’ve actually been the target of homeland surveillance — the joke is less funny.

Last week Dogwood organizers testified at a secret hearing of the Security Intelligence Review Committee — the “watchdog” tasked with keeping CSIS on a leash. We allege not only that Canada’s spy service broke the law by gathering information on peaceful civilians inside Canada, but that government spying has put a chill on democratic participation.

Do you know that feeling, that you’re being watched? It’s like when you park your vehicle in a bad spot and have to walk there after dark. Or you come home after a trip and the door is unlocked. Or you peer into the webcam on your phone or computer and wonder, is anyone there?

This spring I couldn’t shake that creepy sensation. I told myself I was being silly, that I had nothing to hide, that all my interesting consumer data is swept up by marketers already. But the feeling wouldn’t go away, so I sent CSIS a request under the Privacy Act to see if they had a file on me.

A few weeks later a brown envelope arrived from Ottawa with my address hand-written on the front. Inside was a single, watermarked page with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service logo at the top.

“Dear Mr. Nagata,” it began. “The personal information bank listed below was searched on your behalf with the following results:

(CSIS PPU 045) – Canadian Security Intelligence Service Investigational Records — The Governor-in-Council has designated this information bank an exempt bank pursuant to section 18 of the Privacy Act. If the type of information described in the bank did exist, it would qualify for exemption under section 21 (as it relates to the efforts of Canada towards detecting, preventing, or suppressing subversive or hostile activities), or 22(1)(a) and/or (b) of the Act.”

I looked up the exemptions in the Privacy Act. It says agencies can refuse to release information about “activities suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada,” including details “that would reveal the identity of a confidential source of information.”

In other words, I may be under investigation by CSIS. If I am, they can’t tell me — because it might blow the identity of a source. Other friends and organizers have received the same letter. 

Let’s rewind to January 2013 when along with allied groups, Dogwood helped organize an unprecedented number of people to participate in a public review of the Enbridge Northern Gateway project. Most governments would view that as a good thing. Our government sent federal agents after us.

Thanks to U.S. intelligence whistleblower Edward Snowden, security researchers at Queen’s University and journalists at the Guardian, Vancouver Observer and other outlets, the picture has slowly become clear: CSIS and other agencies in Canada see peaceful opposition to private oil company projects as a threat to national security.

We found out long after the fact that a Dogwood-organized meeting in a church basement in Kelowna came under federal surveillance. Later, it appears CSIS agents shared intelligence they had gathered with oil patch executives at a secret briefing sponsored by Enbridge.

Let me try to explain why this makes me so angry.

My dad’s parents were born in Vancouver and grew up speaking English. But because their folks had emigrated from Japan, in 1942 the whole family was reclassified as a threat to Canada. Everything they couldn’t fit in a suitcase — land, houses, shops, boats, farm tools — was seized and auctioned off. More than 25,000 men, women and children were rounded up and deported, put in prison camps or on remote work sites for the next four years.

It emerged after the war that the RCMP had never actually considered Japanese-Canadians a threat. It was the politicians who wanted a scapegoat. Our community has had a wary relationship with the Canadian government ever since. It’s hard to fully identify with a country that has shown you just how fragile your rights are as a citizen.

Still, I tried. After university I volunteered for the infantry reserve. I wanted to be proud of my Canadian identity, to wear the flag on my shoulder, to defend our values at home and overseas. Ironically, they tried to recruit me to do intelligence work in Afghanistan.

Instead I got a job doing radio journalism, ending my army career before it really began. I was disappointed to leave my regiment, but glad to be defending Canada and the public interest in a different way.

What I’m saying is, I work with Dogwood Initiative because I’m a patriot.

I believe in a country where power comes from the people. Where politicians are held accountable to their constituents. Where decisions are made together, not forced down our throats. And yes, where you need consent from First Nations and British Columbians if you want to build a pipeline to an oil tanker port on our coast.

I believe citizenship means thinking for yourself, not just blindly repeating what some politician wants you to say. I believe there’s a difference between our national interest and the interests of state-owned oil companies in China, or pipeline executives sitting in Houston. And I believe that Canada needs to plan for the threats to our economy and security created by climate change — not make them worse.

If you agree with any of that, then I guess we’re both enemies of the state.

The language is ridiculous, but don’t forget — it always starts with language. At a recent event in Vancouver South a Mandarin-speaking woman wanted to sign our Let BC Vote pledge, but explained that she was about to write her citizenship exam. She didn’t want to anger the government.

I laughed it off as paranoia. Sure, there are countries around the world where politically inconvenient people disappear. Secret agents torment families. Peoples’ careers and reputations are ruined. But we tell ourselves that’s not supposed to happen in Canada.

Well, here’s the ugly truth: she’s not wrong to harbour those fears. This country was built on cultural genocide. We invaded territory, stole children, wiped out languages — all of this was official government policy. Canada really did impose a racist head tax on immigrants. And in the First and Second World Wars thousands of citizens were stripped of their rights and property and interned for years in prison camps. These are difficult events to come to terms with, but they’re part of our history.

The only thing protecting us from such abuses today are limits on state power. These checks and balances are not given to us — they had to be fought for. Our job is to guard them vigilantly from the political and corporate interests that would weaken our democratic institutions to their own advantage.

This is one of those moments.

It’s becoming clear that oversight of spy agencies in Canada is dangerously weak. Dogwood only found out about the Kelowna incident long afterwards, by fluke. We have no way of knowing what other events or communications CSIS or other agencies have monitored. But we do know one thing: the situation is about to get worse.

Bill C-51, the government’s so-called antiterrorism law, beefs up the powers of Canada’s clandestine agencies to violate our constitutional rights — with no improvement in transparency or accountability. The violations we allege happened long before C-51 was on the books. Our spy agencies are already breaking the law, because there are no real consequences.

Last week’s hearing were far from perfect. The contents are secret, closed to media and the public. The adjudicator hearing our case is a former director of the TransCanada pipeline company. But it’s a good thing we have this opportunity, however fleeting, to hold Canada’s spies to some degree of accountability. It’s also a reminder of what’s at stake in the current election.

We can go in one of two directions as a country. We can vote to give even greater powers to spy agencies to violate our rights and freedoms. Or we can vote for rational civilian oversight: measures that balance the need to keep our population safe with the need to know how spy agencies are spending public money — and whether they’re obeying Canadian law.

The choice is yours. I invite you to sign the BC Civil Liberties Association “don’t spy on me” petition at SecretSpyHearings.ca. Ask your local candidates where they stand on government surveillance. Make sure they understand it's an election issue.

Above all, please get out and vote. It’s still the most dangerous act of defiance you can possibly undertake.

Image Credit: 707d3k 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 purpose of the National Energy Board, like any regulator, is to be unprofitable. They perform unprofitable environmental assessments to make sure we have access to unprofitable clean drinking water and preserve unprofitable nature for unprofitable future generations. That’s because citizens value things beyond profits, and the National Energy Board represents citizens. In theory… 

One of the last things the Harper government did before it launched the federal election was to appoint Steven Kelly, who is a consultant for Kinder Morgan, to the National Energy Board. This guy was paid to convince the government to approve the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline. And now he’ll be part of the team that helps to decide if his own argument was convincing. If the pipeline review process was a cutest baby competition, we just hired the baby’s mom.

In fact, over half of NEB’s board members are pipeline mommies, a.k.a. oil industry professionals. Which is probably why the Kinder Morgan pipeline review processes has been widely condemned as a farce. The NEB refuses to take climate change into consideration in their review, even though scientists have made clear that more pipelines will lock us into a very hot, very grim future. But the fossil fuel industry, and their representatives in the NEB, are content to watch the world burn, as long as they can make money selling the matches.

There’s good evidence that the NEB no longer represents citizens and no longer works in the public interest. That could change before any more pipelines get built, depending on which Canadians are interested enough in their interests to vote on October 19th.

This video originally appeared in The Toronto Star. 

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.

Despite the federal Conservative government’s seven-year attack on carbon pricing as a “job-killing carbon tax,” Canada is actually making progress provincially on pricing carbon pollution.

Without any direction from the federal government, Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec and recently Ontario have all introduced systems that require polluters to pay for the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions they produce (as we’ve pointed out elsewhere in this series, those systems have had varying success).

But without an overarching carbon pricing system there is only so much the provinces can accomplish. [view:in_this_series=block_1]

“There’s nothing stopping the federal government from attempting to help provinces and territories strengthen and expand their existing GHG programs,” Katie Sullivan, North America policy and climate finance director at the International Emissions Trading Association, said.

“Ottawa could provide model rules, methodologies, guidance, tools and centralized infrastructure and architecture for a variety of program elements,” she said. “The federal government could play a valuable ‘enabling’ role.”

Dave Sawyer, a leading economist with EnviroEconomics, told DeSmog Canada a national system doesn’t have to be overly complicated.

“[A] national system could be just an amalgam of provincial policies that align on key administrative features and prices,” he said, adding, “long-term, we need to transition to a national system to keep costs down as we seek more [emissions] reductions.”

Every ship needs a captain.

Is A National Carbon Pricing System In The Cards?

As DeSmog Canada reported last April, the majority of Canadians want a national carbon pricing system. The latest Angus Reid poll shows 75 per cent of Canadians want a national cap and trade system, while 56 per cent support the idea of a national carbon tax. 

So where do the major federal parties stand?

GHG reductions targets according to federal party platform from Environmental Defence's climate scorecard.

Environmental Defence recently released a helpful climate scorecard that compares the four major political parties in Canada on their climate policies.

While the federal NDP and Greens both support their own versions of a national carbon pricing system — via cap and trade and fee and dividend, respectively — the Conservatives and Liberals have expressed no similar support.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been openly critical of carbon pricing in the past, although he did have a few positive words for Alberta’s carbon levy last year. 

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau told Calgary’s Petroleum Club last February he does not support a “one-size-fits-all solution from Ottawa” when it comes to pricing carbon. He said the choice should be left up to the provinces.

An overview of Canada's federal parties from Environmental Defence's climate scorecard.

Bridging the Provincial-Federal Divide

Philip Gass, senior researcher at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), said a province-by-province approach makes sense but that federal support could help encourage provinces hesitant to commit.

“Each province should be allowed to adopt its own approach,” Gass said. “Provinces should adopt whatever carbon pricing system they think will deliver the most reductions, they can administer and most importantly, a system that is politically acceptable.” 

“For provinces that are not going that way we do need some federal direction.”

“There are many of examples in Canada of issues that crossover both federal and provincial jurisdictions like pricing GHG emissions,” Nathalie Chalifour, law professor and co-director of the Centre for Environmental Law and Global Sustainability at the University of Ottawa, told DeSmog Canada.

Take the federal Species At Risk Act as an example, she said. While the provinces have jurisdiction over species at risk within their borders, the federal government is responsible for federal lands or species that fall under federal jurisdiction like fisheries.

“Given this shared power, there is a provision in the Act allowing the federal government to intervene and manage endangered species under provincial jurisdiction if the provinces are not getting the job done,” Chalifour told DeSmog Canada. 

(It’s worth nothing that in the thirteen years of the Species At Risk Act the federal government has never exercised this provision.) 

The federal government could set a minimum price on GHG emissions. This approach has been described as a “key policy leveler” for carbon pricing in Canada. It could help resolve certain disparities, like the fact that B.C.’s carbon price is currently twice as high as that of Alberta’s or Quebec’s.

But a minimum price isn’t necessary, just like a national minimum wage isn’t necessary for the federal government to enforce the Canadian Labour Code across the provinces.

According to Sullivan from the International Emissions Trading Association the federal government has an important role in ensuring the monitoring and reporting of emissions is “consistent and aligned from coast-to-coast.”

Even basic things like “establishing a centralized registry to record and track emissions data and transactions,” is a central role the federal government can play, Sullivan said.

Setting basic rules on who pays, how to track emissions and what kinds of offsets are acceptable would go a long way to bringing the existing provincial systems in line with one another.

It would also provide a foundation for other provinces to build their own systems on.

“It's not that a common model…and guidance across the provinces can't be done without Ottawa's support, but it would be a heck of a lot more efficient and less-costly to governments and business if Ottawa could step-in to provide this support and common infrastructure at the federal level,” Sullivan told DeSmog Canada.

Federal Leadership Needed

Policy analysts across the board agree carbon pricing on its own cannot solve Canada’s soaring GHG emissions problem. Yet it’s still a step in the right direction and likely won’t be done without strong leadership.

“It takes leadership, courage and vision to stand up and deliver a carbon pricing policy,” Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada, said.

Clean Energy Canada, an energy think tank, recently took an in-depth look at the implementation of B.C.’s carbon tax and Quebec’s cap and trade program. They found the climate leadership of the premiers at the time — Gordon Campbell in B.C. and Jean Charest in Quebec — was “one of the key requirements to getting a carbon price in place,” Smith told DeSmog Canada.

“Those leaders also told us that putting in place a price on carbon was the (or one of the) thing they were most proud in their careers — which will hopefully encourage others to step forward,” she said.

The federal government also has an important role to play in implementing long-overdue oil and gas sector regulations, phasing out the use of coal and demanding greater efficiency in the transport sector — all of which nicely align with carbon pricing.

Beyond that, as a recent report from Clean Energy Canada demonstrated, Canada could do much, much more to support the clean energy sector.

Matt Horne, associate B.C. director at the Pembina Institute, said the federal government could simply begin by changing the conversation around carbon pricing.

“The first and easiest step the federal government could take is offer a more constructive voice on the issue, instead of regularly talking about a ‘job killing carbon tax.’”

“Talk about B.C.’s successful experiment or Quebec’s experiment — any of that will help facilitate a conversation in the country that is way more productive and way more constructive than what they have done to date which has been to attack and demonize carbon pricing approaches,” he said.

Image Credit: Clean Energy 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.

They say the truth will set you free. But sometimes all it takes is retirement.

That’s the case for Steve Campana, a former federal scientist with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who is using his retirement as an opportunity to speak openly about the federal government’s policies and the damage Prime Minister Stephen Harper has caused to public interest science.

“I am concerned about the bigger policy issues that are essentially leading to a death spiral for government science,” Campana told the CBC.

He said federal scientists work in a climate a fear.

“I see that is going to be a huge problem in coming years,” he said. “We are at the point where the vast majority of our senior scientists are in the process of leaving now disgusted as I am with the way things have gone, and I don’t think there is any way for it to be recovered.”

This week, three of Canada’s largest unions rallied in Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City and Vancouver to protest the muzzling of scientists.

Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), which represents 55,000 public sector employees including 15,000 scientists, said the federal government “has no respect whatsoever for Canada’s public scientists.”

“Right now our scientists are constrained in their ability to share their research and collaborate with their peers. They’re frequently ‘missing in action’ at international conferences. They can’t speak freely to the media and the public about their work,” she said.

“These are all essential elements of performing science in the public interest and that’s how you protect our country’s environment and the health and safety of Canadians.”

According to PIPSC, by 2017 the federal government will cut over $2.6 billion from science programs and eliminate an estimated 7,500 positions from 10 major science-based departments. These cuts are expected to run deep in departments already dealing with several years of funding drawbacks.

A traditionally nonpartisan and apolitical union, PIPSC has publicly vowed to make the crisis of science in Canada a federal election issue.

PIPSC recently proposed revisions to its collective agreement, which would guarantee the right for scientists to speak about their work, as long as they clarify “they are speaking in their personal capacity and not on behalf of the Government of Canada.”

“Our members, more than anyone, acknowledge that there are issues and areas where there should be limitations,” Peter Bleyer, union consultant for PIPSC, told Global News.

“But other countries, like the U.S., have established policies to distinguish between when you’re talking on behalf of the government and when you’re talking for yourself and they do just fine.”

Bleyer said more independence is needed for Canada’s scientists and their right to that independence should be enshrined in employment agreements.

He told the CBC there are many stories of frustrated federal scientists.

"It has clearly gotten worse. There is very clear evidence of that. The problem is that it has created an atmosphere that affects not only those who are directly affected, but all of those who hear about it understand what is going on around them. That's what we call, very clearly, a chilling effect."

Campana said he thinks the chill effect is the result of the federal government’s desire for communications control.

"It's hard to fathom. It seems to be simply a control issue. You could sort of understand the rationale if you were potentially talking about a controversial subject and whoever is in government quite rightly has the right to make sure there are no critical statements about policy. But when you go to the extent of silencing just talking about facts, that just doesn't make any sense."

He added this could have serious implications for the public.

"If we don't have the system in place to deal with it, there is going to be some problem that happens in the next few years. I don't know, rising tide levels or tsunami coming in or an invasion of great white sharks, where people are concerned about what's going to happen, and we won't have the qualified people in place to answer those questions at all.

"You can't have those people in place overnight. It takes years, almost decades, to develop that capacity."

Image Credit: Tanya Stemberger

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 Council of Canadians called on the federal government Tuesday to implement regulation of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in Canada. The process, widely used for unconventional oil and gas recovery in western Canada, is linked to numerous human and environmental health threats and currently faces bans or moratoria in Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador. 

“The next Oka in Canadian history is going to be in B.C. and it’s going to be about energy,” indigenous lawyer Caleb Behn said during a press conference in Ottawa addressing the fracking boom in northern British Columbia and other parts of western Canada. 

“I guarantee it. The writing is on the wall. It is just a question of when in my view. That is why the regulators need to step up.”

Behn, who is Eh Cho Dene and Dunne-Za from Treaty 8 Territory in northeastern B.C., and Dr. Kathleen Nolan, co-founder of Concerned Health Professionals of New York, joined the Council of Canadians today in calling on the federal government to safeguard Canadians and their drinking water from the controversial method of releasing natural gas and oil trapped in rock-like shale.

“We need a national water policy that addresses threats to water such as fracking,” Emma Lui, water campaigner with the Council of Canadians, told the press conference this morning at Parliament’s Centre Block.

“With the upcoming federal election, the Council of Canadians hopes to see real federal leadership and commitments to protect our communities, health, water and our water sources from fracking,” she said.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves drilling underground wells 200 to 3,000 metres vertically and another 1,000 metres or more horizontally to penetrate the rock-like shale. Pressurized water mixed with hundreds of toxic substances (including benzene, hydrochloric acid, mercury and formaldehyde) is shot down the well to penetrate the rock and force natural gas or oil to the surface.

A single fracked well consumes anywhere between seven to 23 million litres of water. Poorly constructed or cracked concrete wells have led to the contamination of groundwater with fracking chemicals or methane, a main component of natural gas.

“There are roughly 200 chemicals used in fracking that we know about that have not been assessed by Health Canada or Environment Canada,” Lui explained.

“There is a rapidly emerging body of evidence that shows harms from this activity (fracking) at every stage of the process. With contamination of air, water and social,” Dr. Nolan said.

“People are getting sick.”

Headaches, disorientation, rashes, seizures and asthma are some of the immediate health impacts airborne contaminants from fracking operations can have on people living nearby, Nolan said.

“With water contamination there’s a lag time between the time the contaminants enter the water and then enters the person and then the person gets ill….it could take years or decades before the contaminants reach people,” she said.

“What we are seeing is the tip of the iceberg and that the people who are sick now are basically our biomarkers.”

Behn fears his home territory, which is located in and around Fort Nelson, B.C., and which is at the centre of the Fractured Land documentary, will be destroyed if federal and provincial regulators do not take significant steps to determine the impact fracking operations have on local populations and the environment.

“Absence of proof of harm is not proof of the absence of harm,” Behn said.

A report commissioned and released by Environment Canada last year concluded the potential threat of fracking operations on groundwater “cannot be assessed because of a lack of scientific data and understanding."

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.

Cap and trade is in the new kid in town as far as carbon pricing goes in Canada. In April, just before the Premiers' Climate Summit, Ontario made headlines by announcing it will join Quebec’s cap and trade system, which is linked to cap and trade in California.

So just how does it work? Here's our short primer.

The system was first adopted by Quebec in 2013 (although it’s worth noting the province did impose a tax on gas and diesel fuel back in 2007).

“The benefits of emissions trading, beyond ensuring the climate goal is reached in a measurable manner, is that business has flexible compliance options and ‘carrots’ — incentives for making smart, economic business decisions,” Katie Sullivan, director for North America and Climate Finance at the International Emissions Trading Association, said.

Like Alberta’s carbon levy, Quebec’s system puts a price on emissions above a certain level.[view:in_this_series=block_1]

The limit in Quebec is 25,000 tonnes of carbon pollution annually — an amount significantly lower than the limit in Alberta. Emitters unable to keep their emissions productions below this level must either buy allowances (also referred to as credits or units) or offsets to cover all emissions they produce, not just those emissions over the 25,000 limit.

A flexible and critical tool for keeping costs in check is the ‘offset,’ Sullivan explained.

“[The offset] allows an economy’s non-regulated players, such as farmers, foresters and other clean project developers, to join the climate solution while generating new revenue streams associated with eligible low-carbon — ‘offset’ — projects.”

Carbon offsets are investments in projects that either reduce GHG emissions or draw carbon pollution out of the atmosphere. Planting trees is an example.

Offsets are meant to be like emissions reductions because in theory they cancel out carbon pollution.

There is some dispute about whether offsets actually reduce emissions or simply are a cover to produce more carbon pollution.

“Offsets are probably one of the most contentious parts of a cap and trade. In Quebec and California's system, offsets can only make up to eight per cent of total compliance obligations,” Sarah Petrevan, a senior policy advisor at Clean Energy Canada, said.

The other 92 per cent must be paid for in the form of allowances and this is where the price on carbon comes in.

Allowances can be purchased from the Quebec government or traded for with another company that is below the GHG limit and has allowances to spare. Quebec ‘caps’ the amount of allowances available for purchase and the cap is lowered gradually each year.

Where cap and trade significantly differs from B.C.’s carbon tax and Alberta’s carbon levy is in the price of allowances. These prices actually fluctuate based on supply and demand in an auction-style system.

In order to keep that fluctuation in check, Quebec imposed a “price floor” at $12 per tonne of GHG emissions but increases that floor by five per cent each year, adjusted for inflation.

“One of the things [Quebec] did learn from the EU program was having that price floor, which is very important,” Sullivan wrote in a report. “The safety valve at the top end also gave comfort to industry that prices wouldn’t go skyrocketing in the near-term.”

Although it’s administratively complex and at times difficult to understand, cap-and-trade is the world’s most popular carbon pricing system.

The European Union’s Emissions Trading System is the world’s largest cap and trade market — for now. China plans on introducing cap and trade next year.

“The biggest pro to cap and trade is the flexibility it presents to industry. There’s trading, offsets, etc., and this allows industry to meet their reductions in a number of ways,” Philip Gass from the International Institute for Sustainable Development told DeSmog Canada. 

Quebec’s cap and trade system is still in its infancy, but it looks promising: more emissions are covered in Quebec’s system than the other provincial systems.

Eighty-five per cent of Quebec’s GHG emissions are subject to the system versus only 50 per cent in Alberta and 75 per cent in B.C. 

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.

Internal documents obtained by B.C.'s Haisla Nation show the federal government had concerns about the consultation approach proposed for Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline since at least 2009.

The documents, requested by the Haisla Nation nearly four years ago, were released through Access to Information legislation recently and show the federal government was warned it wasn’t fulfilling its duty to consult Aboriginal peoples as required under Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution.

An Environment Canada e-mail included in the documents contained a list of concerns regarding the consultation process, stating, “it is not clear that [the process] would meet the honour of the Crown duty.”

The e-mail also acknowledged “First Nations were not involved in the design of the consultation process” and that there was a “lack of clarity” concerning First Nations’ rights and title.

Haisla Nation Chief Councillor Ellis Ross said he received the trove of documents with “mixed emotions.”

“We’re very satisfied to know the staff of Environment Canada agreed with us in terms of the inadequate process in place to address rights and title,” Ross said. “But it’s disappointing this information is in our hands now when we can’t do anything with it legally or politically.”

“But it does confirm what we’ve been saying all along about the process when it comes to rights and title is very inadequate. It doesn’t even follow case law.” 

Under Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act, the government is obligated to "recognize and affirm" First Nations rights, including the right to traditional land and cultural practices. The Crown has a 'duty to consult' First Nations on any projects planned for traditional territory or projects that may affect aboriginal rights. 

The National Energy Board conditionally approved the controversial 1,178 kilometre Northern Gateway pipeline in June 2013 despite broad opposition from First Nations and other British Columbians.

“Now we can see that Canada’s own environment ministry agreed with us,” Chief Fred Sam of Nak’azdli said.

“For years Nak’azdli and the Yinka Dene Alliance have said to Canada that its approach to consultation for the Enbridge proposal is seriously flawed,” he said.

Eight First Nations including the Haisla, the Nak’azdli and Gitxaala Nations have launched a legal challenge against the pipeline on the basis of inadequate consultation.

Chris Tollefson, lawyer with the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre, said the lack of appropriate consultation was apparent from the moment the Joint Review Panel (JRP) hearings for the Northern Gateway pipeline began.

“At the hearings I could see the frustration of the First Nations that were participating in terms of the inability of the process to deal with their constitutional rights and their issues,” Tollefson told DeSmog Canada.

“The JRP in my view was never clear on what its role was in relation to consultation and that uncertainty, I think, will ensure that this issue is before the courts for some time. Because in the end that consultation, from my perspective, was never duly discharged.”

When it comes to Section 35 of the Constitution, “the first principle is that First Nations have a right to be consulted on projects that would affect their rights or their title; in short, their livelihood and life and right to occupy traditional territory,” he said.

Tollefson said the federal Court of Appeal will hear the case of the eight First Nations as well as two environmental organizations — including BC Nature which he represents — against the Northern Gateway pipeline's approval in Vancouver this October.

Ellis Ross. Photo: Philip Chin

An additional Transport Canada e-mail released to the Haisla, dated August 31, 2009, also expressed doubt in the adequacy of the government’s approach saying “the consultation plan as written does not appear to be flexible enough to account for changing circumstances and incoming information.”

Both the Environment Canada and Transport Canada e-mails were sent to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, which was seeking input from government agencies on Crown consultation.

Despite these doubts the federal government “charged ahead” with its consultation process, Chief Sam said.

“Now, many First Nations have been forced to go to court to challenge Canada’s Enbridge decision,” he said.

Gitxaala Nation Chief Clarence Innis said he’s “shocked” that, despite the apparent level of uncertainty about consultation, “Canada pressed ahead with this dishonourable treatment of our Nation and other First Nations.”

“This confirms the justice of our principled opposition to the shipping of bitumen through our territory and British Columbia’s Northwest Coast,” Innis said.

For Haisla legal counsel Ellis Ross, the documents cast a shadow on the traditionally fraught relationship between First Nations and the federal government.

“We’re trying to follow the rules, and case law principles — the Haisla isn’t blocking roads or anything — we’re trying to follow the courts,” he said.

“But with Canada, it’s like the rules are there to be bent or broken.”

Environment Canada Sep 1 2009 Email Re Consultation Approach

Transport Canada Aug 31 2009 Email Re Consultation Approach

Image Credit: Ellis Ross by Philip Chin

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.