Elections B.C. has been asked to investigate political contributions made to the BC Liberals by high-ranking Kinder Morgan staff, including president Ian Anderson.

The democracy advocacy group Dogwood submitted a formal complaint to Elections B.C. this week after discovering a series of political donations from individuals connected to Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline and tanker project that received provincial approval in January 2017.

The complaint comes on the heels of a bombshell investigation by the Globe and Mail that revealed corporate lobbyists were illegally reimbursed for contributions made to the B.C. Liberals.

Donations from Kinder Morgan staff to the BC Liberals include:

• Ian Anderson, President, Kinder Morgan Canada: $7,300
• Gavin Dew, Stakeholder Engagement Specialist: $13,120
• Lexa Hobenshield, External Relations Manager: $3,725
• Stephanie Snider, consulting lobbyist: $1,000

“If Kinder Morgan reimbursed any of its staff or lobbyists for event tickets, tables at fundraisers or other political contributions, they broke the law,” Kai Nagata, communications director for Dogwood, said in a press release.

B.C. has long been criticized for having some of the weakest political donation rules in Canada. There are no restrictions on corporate, union or foreign donations and there are no limits on what individuals can contribute.

It is explicitly illegal, however, to donate on behalf of or conceal the identity of another individual or entity.

“I think the people that have been tuned into what’s going on have looked at the B.C. political donation system with horror for many years but it does appear that current government has really elevated this style of fundraising to an art form,” Nagata told DeSmog Canada.

“The big difference we’ve seen in the last week is the realization that in their greed these players have found a way to break one of the few rules we do have which is around “straw donors.’ ”

The B.C. Liberals raised $12 million in 2016, more than any other ruling provincial party in Canada and two-thirds as much as the federal Liberal Party, according to the Globe investigation.

Nagata said the massive amounts of corporate and foreign cash flowing into B.C. raise significant concerns about decision-making in the province.

“The fundamental question is whether politicians are governing in the public’s interest and the scale of infiltration of foreign and corporate money raises serious questions about whether that is the case.”

Dogwood calculates that prior to the approval of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline project, the BC Liberals received $771,168 in donations from project supporters including Kinder Morgan, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and oilsands producers. The same group donated $51,210 to the BC NDP.

Political Donations By Top #KinderMorgan Staff Draw Call for ElectionsBC Investigation https://t.co/EKxy6xJvkR @dogwoodbc @kainagata #bcpoli pic.twitter.com/zMINcctiqp

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) March 10, 2017

A recent report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Corporate Mapping Project found the B.C. government has been lobbied more than 22,000 times by the fossil fuel industry since 2010 and received $5.2 million in industry political donations between 2008 and 2015, 92 per cent of which went to the BC Liberals.

“Each of these examples highlights how politicians have turned this lack of laws and regulations to their advantage politically,” Nagata said.

Despite numerous calls to modernize B.C.’s political donation system, no changes have been made under the BC Liberals.

“People are starting to wake up and realize every decision this government has made, and contracts they’ve given out and billions in tax breaks they’ve awarded to donor companies — all of that is now in question.”

Andrew Weaver, leader of the BC Green party, said B.C. is running a “pay to play” system that prioritizes big donors.

“The fact that we have so much money going from so few fossil fuel companies to both parties — mostly the BC Liberals but also to the BC NDP — is part of the reason we have lost so many opportunities in B.C.,” Weaver told DeSmog Canada.

“I was the only MLA who took the time to be an intervenor in the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain hearings,” Weaver said. “The BC Liberals put out their five conditions for the project but never even outlined what it would take to meet those conditions.”

“B.C. politics is sick to the core because of this pay to play, because of lobbyists and corporate influence. People are being left behind.”

The BC Green party does not accept union and corporate donations.

“The ballot question this election is about trust: who do you elect to represent the people?”

“That’s a question for people who can vote: unions don’t vote and corporations don’t vote.”

Elections B.C. did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.

Image: Christy Clark annouces B.C.'s approval of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline. Photo: Province of B.C. 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.

Either support new pipelines or your community will be incinerated by an oil-carrying train.

It sounds outrageous, but it’s been a foundational argument made by the pro-pipeline lobby ever since the horrific Lac-Mégantic disaster in 2013.

“This is almost like putting a gun to the head of communities, saying ‘well, if we don’t build our pipeline then we’re going to put more oil-by-rail traffic through your community,’ ” says Patrick DeRochie, program manager of Environmental Defence’s climate and energy program.

“I think that’s dishonest and the oil industry’s really manipulating legitimate public concerns about rail safety to push pipelines.”

On Dec. 20, 2016 — less than a month after the federal approvals of the Kinder Morgan TransMountain and Enbridge Line 3 pipelines — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau clearly stated that “putting in a pipeline is a way of preventing oil by rail, which is more dangerous and more expensive.”

The fact that it’s an oft-repeated sentiment shouldn’t overshadow the fact that this is a completely false binary.

Canada is hardly shipping any oil by rail. It never has.

And the only way that oil-by-rail shipments will seriously increase as predicted by the Canadian Energy Research Institute and National Energy Board is if Canada continues with its plan to allow for the massive expansion of Alberta’s oilsands in the coming decades, a move that will undermine calls for a moratorium on all new fossil fuel infrastructure in order to avoid the effects of catastrophic climate change.

Highest Amount Ever Exported by Rail Was Mere 178,000 Barrels Per Day

Here are the numbers on oil-by-rail.

In September 2016 — the most recent month reported by the National Energy Board on the subject — oil-by-rail exports to the United States were 69,292 barrels per day (bpd).

They had dipped as low as 43,205 bpd in June 2016.

This obviously reflects the extremely low per-barrel price that bitumen is fetching from American refineries, which is also why there’s currently around 400,000 bpd of spare capacity in the pipeline network.

Plus, oil-by-rail generally costs more than shipping oil by pipeline, making it an even less viable option in such economic times.

But rail shipments have never been particularly notable relative to total crude oil production.

In fact, oil-by-rail’s high point in recent years was in September 2014, when 178,989 bpd were transported to the U.S.

The same year, Canada was exporting a total of 2.85 million bpd. In other words, at its very peak, oil-by-rail accounted for a mere 6.28 per cent of total exports.

Newly Approved Pipelines Quadruple Capacity Historically Shipped by Rail

It should also be noted that not all oil transported by rail is exported to the States, with some simply transported to other parts of the country for storage or usage for purposes such as asphalt.

For instance, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers reports the oil-by-rail hit “almost 200,000 bpd by the end of 2013,” despite the NEB only reporting 166,570 bpd in rail exports during December 2013.

Domestic transport also helps explain why the Canadian Energy Research Institute reported in 2014 that about 35,000 bpd of oil-by-rail from Western Canada wasn’t exported to the United States (and thus not counted by the NEB).

Incredibly, nobody is keeping detailed, accurate numbers on oil-by-rail.

But we can assume — generously — that the highest oil-by-rail shipments have ever hit in Canada is 225,000 bpd (180,000 bpd in exports and another 45,000 bpd in cross-country transport).

The recent approvals of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain and Enbridge Line 3 pipelines will allow for the addition of 900,000 bpd in pipeline capacity from the oilsands, assuming a 15 per cent surplus for outages and maintenance.

That’s four times the amount of oil that has ever been shipped by rail, either for exports or domestic transport.

New pipelines are not about “displacing” oil currently being shipped by rail — there’s simply no evidence for that.

Instead, new pipelines are about preparing for a massive expansion of the oilsands by almost two million bpd between 2015 and 2040, and weaponizing people’s fears of oil-by-rail to do so.

How the Spectre of Oil Trains is Deceptively Used to Push Pipelines https://t.co/mWbMw5F4SK @james_m_wilt #cdnpoli #oilbyrail #propaganda

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) January 6, 2017

Oil-By-Rail Unsafe Because of Regulatory Lack

But there’s a second and related key problem with the pipeline versus rail debate, further undermining the argument for new pipelines.

Specifically, that there are technologies and regulations available to ensure that oil being shipped by rail is far safer than what the current rules mandate.

As a result, combined exports and domestic transport via rail could even rebound to 200,000 or 250,000 bpd and we’d never have to seriously worry about a Lac-Mégantic-like disaster again.

How?

Transport Canada could require rail companies to increase the number of inspectors and crew members on trains, reduce speed limits and require certain braking system protocols and better public disclosure.

The phase-out of the old CPC-1232 tank railcars and transition to new and safer TC-117 tank railcars could be accelerated. The federal environment minister could be required to order an environmental assessment of oil-by-rail projects, as recommended in September 2016 by NDP MP Linda Duncan.

‘Neatbit’ Would Reduce Risk of Explosions and Spills, But Initially Increase Costs

And then there’s the increasingly popular idea of “neatbit.”

Bitumen from the oilsands is current shipped in both pipeline and train in a form called “dilbit,” which requires about 30 per cent of diluent to allow it move. The diluent, usually made of a natural gas-based condensate, makes the mixture highly flammable, explosive and difficult to contain in spills.

These characteristics are dangerously compounded in the case of train accidents.

Conversely, “neatbit” only requires one to two per cent of diluent.

The product thus has the consistency of peanut butter, meaning it won’t flow in the event of a spill. It also doesn’t catch fire or explode.

David Hughes, expert on unconventional fuels and author of multiple reports for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), says: “In effect, shipping raw bitumen by rail is likely a safer alternative than pipelines.”

Shipping bitumen as neatbit would arguably save companies money in the long term. But it would also require a bit of upfront capital, and policy direction from governments.

Heavy oil refineries don’t have the infrastructure to receive it. It would take longer to unload. Upstream companies would have to build diluent recovery units and invest in insulated tank railcars with heated coils to keep the bitumen somewhat soft during transport.

And unlike pipelines, oil-by-rail doesn’t result in a “carbon lock-in” given that many other commodities can be transported by rail.

Bruce Campbell of the CCPA has concluded the oil industry “is not in any hurry to make the transition because of the (relatively modest) upfront investment.”

Kai Nagata of the Dogwood Initiative agrees: “The oil companies don’t want to do anything that is inconvenient or that would require them to build new facilities or spend more money. So far, I don’t think there’s much interest in moving that inert form of bitumen in regular rail cars.”

‘It’s Purely Out of a Profit Motive That They Invoke the Comparison’

Not only is it deceptive to claim that new pipelines are needed to replace oil-by-rail, but it also ignores the fact that oil-by-rail can be made much safer than it is at the moment (although it will continue to be more carbon-intensive due to its current reliance on diesel as fuel).

Yet Lac-Mégantic continues to be subtly weaponized by corporate execs and politicians as if these two facts aren’t true, or even worthy of acknowledgement.

Oil-by-rail has never been a major player in Canada. It never will be if international climate commitments are honoured. And even if it is used as a way to offer some flexibility to producers, it can be done in a way that’s safer than current practices require.

Nagata suggests that such players are relying on people’s fears about a non-issue in order to force them to a point of compromise that would allow them to build pipeline expansion infrastructure.

“It’s purely out of a profit motive that they invoke the comparison,” he says. “Not out of any sense of concern for the safety of communities along the route.”

DeRochie agrees: “It’s a legitimate concern. And I think the oil industry grasped onto that and used it as a scare tactic to push pipelines.”

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.

Christy Clark doesn’t like Victoria. At least, she said as much in an interview with the National Post: “I try never to go over there. Because it’s sick. It’s a sick culture. All they can think about is government…”

Maybe that’s why Clark pulled the plug on this fall’s legislative session. As a bonus, that means her political opponents won’t get the opportunity to ask her any questions … well, not in the legislature at least.

Unfortunately for the powers that be, we rang up a few folks. Here are their top five questions for Clark.

1) What the @#$& is B.C. actually doing on climate change?

“We can start with what’s in the news right now: the national carbon pricing issue,” says Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

“What is B.C.’s climate plan? We can’t discuss it.”

Weaver said the BC Liberals have used climate leadership as a political slogan but have utterly failed to implement meaningful climate action.

Any success held by this government on the climate file is due to “riding the coattails of the former government under Gordon Campbell,” he said.

The B.C. Auditor General Carol Bellringer is investigating B.C.’s record on climate leadership but recently said she will not release her findings until after the provincial election.

“We don’t have a climate plan and we can’t challenge government on that in the house,” Weaver said.

George Heyman, NDP MLA for Vancouver-Fairview and opposition critic for environment, green economy and technology, said Clark ignored the recommendations of her own climate leadership team.

“Christy Clark ignored their recommendations after asking them to show us a path forward for climate action,” he said.

“What the premier ended up releasing was a climate procrastination plan.”

2) LNG Industry. What LNG Industry?

Although Petronas’ Pacific Northwest LNG project got federal approval last week, many onlookers think it’s unlikely to go ahead due to market conditions.

“I’ve been saying for four years now that an LNG industry in B.C. is nothing but a pipe dream,” Weaver said.

“And here we have the last potential sitting before election campaign season and we cannot challenge government as to what their backup plan is. The B.C. government needs to be challenged on the utter failure of LNG.”

3) What’s the Province’s Stance on the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline?

“All the rumors we’ve heard from Ottawa are that Trudeau is getting ready to approve this massive oil pipeline and tanker project before Christmas,” said Kai Nagata, communications director for Dogwood, a B.C. democracy group.

“So there are going to be massive conversations with the provincial government happening right now about what it’s going to take to get Christy Clark on board.”

“We deserve clarity and we’re not going to get it without ministers answering for it in the legislature.”

The province of B.C. officially opposed Trans Mountain in its final filing to the National Energy Board, but indicated it could approve the project if its five conditions are met.

Weaver said when it comes to major projects “we don’t see the Premier standing up for British Columbians in this province.”

“For Kinder Morgan, the B.C. government put in its politically populist five conditions, but they are utterly meaningless when you consider the horse-trading going on,” he said. “They are more concerned about political tradeoffs than anything else.”  

Top 5 Q's @ChristyClarkBC is Dodging by Cancelling the Fall Sitting https://t.co/7LKV5GGrcX #bcpoli #BCLNG #SiteC #KinderMorgan #BanBigMoney

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 6, 2016

4) What the Heck is Happening with the Site C Dam?

As the fall hits, construction of the contentious Site C dam is in full force in the Peace River valley. Families and farmers facing expropriation of their land are counting the days they have left on their properties.

“The Site C dam is a waste of money on every account,” Heyman said, adding if he were in the legislature he would ask the BC Liberals what they’re doing to promote the green tech sector.

Christy Clark’s emphasis on the Site C dam project has led to alternative energy developers — like the Canadian Wind Energy Association — to leave the province for better prospects elsewhere.

“We would ask them why they are supporting the Site C dam without any [B.C. Utilities Commission] review when it’s going to drive up prices for ratepayers,” Heyman said.

“We would also ask them why they won’t allow B.C.’s innovative people in the clean tech sector to take advantage of the opportunities presented by a carbon tax to grow B.C.’s green economy.”

5) When Will B.C. Ban Corporate Donations?

The issue of major fossil fuel infrastructure projects intersects with another political juggernaut that’s come to a head under the Christy Clark government’s leadership: the affordable housing crisis.

“The overarching issue that ties into both the housing crisis and massive fossil fuel infrastructure is corporate donations,” Nagata said.

The BC Liberals have come under fire for accepting generous donations from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals, often from outside the country. This practice persists in B.C. — called the wild west of campaign finance — despite being banned in all other major provinces in Canada. Clark conveniently delayed implementing election-spending limits (that’s right, there are none in B.C.) until after 2018.

The BC Green Party recently announced it will no longer accept any corporate or union donations. Heyman said the NDP has promised to ban corporate and union donations if the party takes power.

Since 2005 the BC Liberals have accepted $70.2 million from corporate donors, according to data from Elections B.C.

“That absolutely affects their choices on a range of issues,” Nagata said. “And now they won’t be held accountable for that.”

The BC Liberals have come under increased scrutiny for allowing a controversial grizzly bear trophy hunt to continue in B.C., despite overwhelming opposition from the majority of British Columbians, First Nations and conservation groups. As Dogwood has pointed out, the Guide Outfitters Association is a major donor to the party.

“Christy Clark was right when she said there’s a sick culture in the political beltway of Victoria,” Nagata said. “It was one that her party played a large role in creating by allowing big money donors and friends of her party to dictate policy on everything from wildlife issues to major infrastructure projects to the housing market.”

The absence of a fall sitting creates a vacuum, Nagata said.

“That’s a dangerous long-term trend for democracy and a sad way to head in to the next election.”

Image: Christy Clark, one time when she was in Victoria. Photo: Christy Clark 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.

Canadians could be forgiven for being a bit confused about how Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is doing on climate change these days.

Last week he approved one of the largest sources of carbon pollution in the country — the Pacific Northwest LNG export terminal in B.C.

The week before that his government announced it would stick with Harper-era emissions targets.

Now Trudeau has announced the creation of a pan-Canadian carbon-pricing framework, which means our country will have a carbon tax nation-wide for the first time ever.

So are we hurtling toward overshooting our climate targets or are we finally getting on track?

Let’s look first at the carbon price announcement.

The carbon price will begin at $10 in 2018 and will scale up $10 per year until 2022.

The announcement “sends a clear signal that we’re all in this together and that we need a federal approach to regulate carbon pollution,” said Amin Asadollahi, lead for climate change mitigation at the International Institute of Sustainable Development.

The timing seems right as well, with a new Nanos poll showing 77 per cent of Canadians support or somewhat support Canada pursuing a national plan to meet international climate commitments. Additionally, 62 per cent of Canadians support or somewhat support a national carbon price.

Under the new framework, provinces will have the autonomy to choose a carbon pricing mechanism that works for them, whether carbon tax or cap and trade, and all revenues generated in province will stay in province.

Having a pan-Canadian framework for pricing carbon creates incentive for businesses, Assadollahi said, and “harmonizes the approach rather than having patchwork policies across the country.”

However, critics have already come out against the price as too weak to be useful.

“I was very disappointed we were starting with $10 per tonne,” said Elizabeth May, leader of the federal Green Party, “which is so low under British Columbia’s carbon tax of $30 per tonne. It was an obvious political calculation.”

And bringing the provinces together may be harder than Trudeau bargained for.

Already Premier Rachel Notley has announced Alberta will only support the plan in exchange for pipeline access to tidewater. Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, who has been a vocal opponent of carbon pricing for years, used the announcement to reiterate his position, saying the announcement wasn’t worth the carbon emissions it took to fly environment ministers to Ottawa.

May told DeSmog Canada the “recalcitrance of the provinces is very disconcerting.”

May said the environment ministers of Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, who were visiting a meeting of the ministers this morning, made a statement by walking out in response to Trudeau’s carbon price announcement.

“Ministers of provinces storming out of meetings is just childish,” May said, especially given the flexibility of the carbon price plan to suit individual provinces and territories.

Canada’s New Carbon Price: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly #carbontax #cdnpoli #climate https://t.co/g9nBo5m8d2

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 4, 2016

Matt Horne, senior policy analyst with the Pembina Institute, said the Prime Minister made a smart political move in considering differences among provinces in the plan.

“The feds were wise not to be too prescriptive here,” Horne told DeSmog Canada.

“The decision they made on the flexibility of the mechanism and revenue generated is interesting,” Horne said. “You have got to achieve this level of ambition but how you do it and how you use the revenue is up to you.”

“That gives maximum space to someone like Brad Wall to make this work in Saskatchewan.”

Province by province regulations will be necessary to meaningfully reduce emissions where they start.

A recent report by Mark Jaccard, climate policy analyst and professor at Simon Fraser University, found a carbon tax of $200 per tonne would be necessary to catalyze significant climate action and a transition to renewable energy systems.

Jaccard said an overreliance on carbon pricing can mask a suite of alternative options like sector-by-sector performance standards, renewable portfolio standards, mandatory market shares and zero-emission vehicles.

“Ninety per cent of the reductions in the last eight or nine years…in California are occurring because of the flexible regs, not because of that very low floor price in their cap-and-trade,” Jaccard told DeSmog Canada in a recent interview.

Whether or not this federal government will be a strong actor on climate change remains to be determined.

For Kai Nagata, communications director at the Dogwood Institute, Trudeau’s carbon price announcement should be viewed within the context of last week’s approval of the Pacific Northwest LNG export terminal.

“If you set a weak carbon pricing target, that means to hit your pollution reductions targets you have to reduce actual carbon infrastructure. Are we doing that? Not at all, in fact, quite the opposite.”

“This is the dilemma,” Nagata said, “no one believes carbon pricing alone, through whatever form, is going to reduce pollution enough to get at base pollution levels.”

“The only thing that would really take a bite out of Canada’s carbon pie is to stop adding fossil fuel infrastructure.”

Nagata added if Trudeau fails to put pressure on the energy sector to reduce emissions, that pressure will be placed on other less-polluting sectors and individual citizens.

“It’s fundamentally unfair and it will have the effect, if they continue to approve extraction and production, of subsidizing the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the ordinary citizen.”

Alex Doukas, senior campaigner at Oil Change International, also pointed to the issue of subsidies.

“Setting a strong national carbon price is potentially a very important step forward for Canadian climate action,” Doukas said. “But there’s a multi-billion-dollar elephant in the room: Canada still gives $3.3 billion in subsidies to oil and gas companies each year.”

Doukas said the Trudeau government needs to complement its carbon price with an “ambitious timeline for phasing out all of its fossil fuel subsidies.”

“Otherwise, the Trudeau government’s incentives to polluters risks cancelling out the newly announced carbon price.”

So while some Canadians are celebrating the announcement of a national carbon tax as a victory, it will remain pyrrhic until Trudeau implements the types of regulation that will actually bring significant emissions reductions and starts to make the tough calls on building new fossil fuel infrastructure. Until then, we’re going to hold the applause.

Update: October 4, 2016. The provincial environment ministers walked out of a meeting of ministers in Montreal, not out of the House of Commons as was previously stated. Kai Nagata’s title has been updated from energy and democracy director to communications director. 

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.

Restoring oversight. Meaningful participation. Rebuilding trust.

Such phrases sounded just so good when the federal Liberal Party first detailed its plan to address the environmental assessment and consultation process for major projects like interprovincial pipelines and LNG export terminals.

But such rhetoric may already be critically undermined thanks to way the government has approached public consultations in its environmental review of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Expansion Project, which would almost triple the Edmonton-to-Burnaby pipeline’s capacity to 890,000 barrels/day.

Such missteps include but are certainly not limited to: appointing a former LNG lobbyist and partner with Kinder Morgan to sit on the panel, providing inadequate notice to the public and First Nations of the actual hearings, and failing to mandate that the consultations actually have any bearing on the final decision by cabinet.

The Trans Mountain Expansion will be the first major resource project to receive a decision by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet, with a decision expected by just before Christmas.

As a result, the way the government handles criticism of its panel review process may set the tone for the remainder of its efforts to reverse the previous government’s dismembering of the environmental review process. At this point, it’s not looking good.

Panel to Rebuild Public Trust in Federal Assessment Process

In late May, the National Energy Board (NEB) granted the Trans Mountain Expansion a partial approval, subject to 157 conditions.

(Technically, and thanks to the same changes in 2012 that handed the NEB responsibility for conducting reviews of pipeline projects, the federal cabinet didn’t even need to listen to the NEB’s verdict and could have okayed the project even if it hadn’t received approval.)

But the NEB is arguably ill-suited to perform environmental reviews given its technical focus, so the federal government appointed a three-person panel to conduct an additional review of the project in order to help restore some of that evaporated public trust.

Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr appointed to the panel: Kim Baird (former chief of Tsawwassen First Nation, lobbyist for Woodfibre LNG and partner with Kinder Morgan), Tony Penikett (former premier of Yukon) and Annette Trimbee (president of the University of Winnipeg and member of the Alberta government’s recent non-renewable resource royalty review panel).

The panel was tasked with consulting citizens, First Nations and local governments in ten cities during July and August: Calgary, Edmonton, Jasper, Kamloops, Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Langley, Burnaby, Vancouver and Victoria.

#KinderMorgan Review Panel Slammed for Perceived Conflict of Interest https://t.co/28WwWsfGoq #cdnpoli #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) August 8, 2016

Panel Member's Relationship With Kinder Morgan Questioned

But problems started almost immediately. Baird was quickly flagged as carrying a perceived conflict of interest given her former ties to the company that she was supposed to be reviewing with an unbiased lens.

A video posted by the Dogwood Initiative showed that Baird had a working relationship with Kinder Morgan Canada’s president Ian Anderson, having previously shared staff expertise with the company and stating “our perspectives were more similar than not.”

“Of all of the people in British Columbia that you could possibly find to take the job, why not pick somebody who doesn’t have an online video of them visiting the Kinder Morgan facilities and boardroom in Calgary and talking about how similar they are and sharing staff?” says Kai Nagata, the Dogwood Initiative’s director of energy and democracy.

“There four-and-a-half million people in the province: just pick somebody who’s not directly involved with the proponent,” he adds.

Hearings Consistently Accused of Being Poorly Publicized and Scheduled

The Kamloops hearing was a disaster. The event’s organization was criticized throughout the day, with many reporting that citizens weren’t given enough notice.

At one point, Penikett interrupted one of the citizens speaking to ask how they got to the university campus, implying their assumed reliance on fossil fuels makes them an unsuitable critic of the project. The incident, Nagata says, “betrays a complete ignorance about the purpose of the pipeline” as the heavy crude will be bound for export not direct usage in domestic cars.

“Why didn’t they just get Ezra Levant to run the panel?” Nagata quips.

Many of the same concerns have been voiced in other communities: the Chilliwack Times reported the consultations were slammed by local First Nations for a lack of invitations, while the Langley Times observed the hearings were considered “poorly publicized and badly scheduled.”

Nagata says Dogwood has been hearing the same thing from all of the communities: he says if the government really wants to find out what people think, they should have panel that has “at least the appearance of being impartial,” give more than 48 hours notice that a panel hearing is happening and host it at a time when people aren’t vacationing or working.

He adds that all the problems with the NEB process are present in these panel hearings: the proponent doesn’t have to appear, there’s no cross-examination or testing of evidence, and there’s no real mechanism to introduce scientific evidence other than attaching a PDF to an email with a staggeringly long address.

“That’s just not how you conduct a public infrastructure review process in the developed world,” Nagata says.

“It does not meet the basic test for procedural fairness or natural justice. If that’s the basis on which they plan to approve this pipeline, they’re setting themselves up for political fallout and legal challenges. And that’s really sad given the very clear promises made during the election.”

Trimbee Also Under Fire For Stance on Fossil Fuel Divestment

And Baird isn’t the only member on the review panel with a questionable history.

Trimbee, the president of the University of Winnipeg and member of Alberta’s criticized royalty review panel, has come under fire from students for the way the university’s administration handled a June 27 vote on fossil fuel divestment, with the outcome marked by similar problems as the federal review panel.

Andrew Vineberg, a student at the University of Winnipeg and community liaison for its students’ association, says the call for divestment started in the fall of 2014, with the school’s administration and board of regents agreeing to do a risk assessment of divestment in May of 2015 (which he admits was an admiringly fast response, noting that some campuses push for divestment for years without any success).

Vineberg describes the risk assessment phase as “very open and transparent and public,” with administration seeming open to considering the issue.

Trimbee attended every related meeting.

Underpublicized Vote Did Not Explicitly Address Divestment

But the lofty rhetoric, which Vineberg describes as attempting to “make it seem like they were bolstering their environmental policy,” was quickly undermined by the out-of-nowhere vote on the issue that took place after the school year was done and with some student representatives unable to attend.

The agenda was released only a few days before the meeting, with the phrase “responsible investment” replacing “fossil fuel divestment” even though the risk assessment had spoken explicitly about the latter.

Vineberg says many of the regents didn’t know what they were voting on coming in, and that the wording was vague and toothless (the proposal being “a responsible investment policy that applies Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) criteria and a separate fund option that is 100 per cent fossil fuel free and geared towards ‘green’ innovation.”)

“The university went in a direction that, to me, suggests they like the PR value that publically claiming a support of sustainability and environmentalism and social justice and indigenization brings to them but they do not actually want to do the work and change their manner of business to align themselves with those values,” he says. “They do not want to compromise the way they do business.”

Vineberg says they’re now gearing up for the next phase of organizing and mass mobilizing for September.

Environmental Review Panel Serves as Predominant Interim Intervention

In late June, the federal government announced a review of the NEB and environmental assessment process. Both review panels will be presenting their recommendations in January 2017, after cabinet is expected to have made a decision on the Trans Mountain Expansion Project.

In other words, this environment review panel serves as the predominant interim intervention by the federal government into what’s otherwise considered a hopelessly flawed assessment process for one of the biggest pipeline projects in the foreseeable future.

And the government appointed a former Kinder Morgan partner, a panelist who attempts to undermine criticisms by accusing them of relying on fossil fuels to get to the public consultation, and a university president who has circumvented pushes for fossil divestment on her campus.

In addition, the consultations have been arguably underpublicized, while the perspectives from citizens who manage to book a babysitter and take the day off work to attend them have no actual legal bearing on the decision.

Nagata suggests it fits into the broader pattern of action not meeting rhetoric, with the federal government granting Site C dam permits only being the most recent example. And now the panelists are heading to Burnaby (August 9 to 11) and Vancouver (August 16 to 18), spots of fierce opposition to the proposed pipeline.

“They think they’ve had a rough ride so far from the Interior and Fraser Valley communities,” Nagata says.

“I think people are pretty pissed off. The whole idea was the Liberals campaigned on the glaring inadequacies of the National Energy Board process. They were very forceful in denouncing the Harper government’s approach to pipeline approvals. And what they’ve done is arguably made the entire process worse.”

Image: Pipeline review meeting via Kai Nagata

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

The National Energy Board (NEB) recommended a conditional approval of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion today after a years-long review process many participants criticized as inadequate, rushed and lacking in transparency.

In a filing posted Thursday the NEB recommended cabinet approve the project, subject to 157 conditions.

“Taking into account all the evidence, considering all relevant factors, and given that there are considerable benefits nationally, regionally and to some degree locally, the Board found that the benefits of the Project would outweigh the residual burdens,” the filing states.

Yet many individuals and organizations involved in the process say today’s recommendation comes on the heels of a beleaguered review process that did not consider many of the risks of the project.

“Today’s recommendation is exactly as we expected given the way this panel approached the review,” Robyn Allan, former CEO of ICBC and economic risk expert, told DeSmog Canada. “It was simply set up as a way to get to yes.”

Allan publicly withdrew from the Kinder Morgan review process, saying she could no longer “endorse a process that is not working.”

“The NEB we all know is not credible, but somehow today we’re behaving as if it means something,” Allan said, adding the 157 conditions the board placed on the project are “predicated on a false scope of the issue.”

“The scope that the board reviewed is so limited it doesn’t look at risk or cost for our society from this pipeline system,” she said. “From that view it’s very easy to say the benefits outweigh the costs.”

The expansion project involves twinning the existing pipeline that runs from near Edmonton to the Burrard Inlet in Burnaby B.C. The project will nearly triple the pipeline capacity from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels of oilsands crude and other fuels per day.

The NEB recommendation will be taken under review by the federal government and cabinet is expected to make a final decision on the project by December.

Recommendation Made Under Broken Process

The NEB-led review process was plagued with credibility issues from the outset.

Restrictive participation guidelines meant hundreds of applicants were denied the opportunity to give oral or written testimony in the hearings. In total, 468 citizens had their intervenor applications rejected, including a group of 27 climate experts.

The board also deemed climate impacts of the project irrelevant to the hearings and on that basis excluded information on upstream environmental impacts of oilsands extraction. The panel eventually excluded oral testimony and cross-examination from the process altogether.

Chris Tollefson, law professor and counsel for B.C. Nature and Nature Canada in the hearings, said today’s recommendation reflects the inadequacy of the review process.

“What this process and report today underscores is how urgent the need is for restructuring the review of these projects,” Tollefson said.

“This panel never secured a credible, scientific record upon which to make a decision for a variety of reasons.”

“At the end of the day what a process like this needs to be asking is, will this project make a net contribution to a sustainable economy, will this projects put us on a path to meeting our international climate commitments?”

“Neither of those questions are asked or answered in this report,” he said.

Canada's currently regulatory structure has "outlived it's usefulness," Tollefson said.

"We need to have a process that is multi-governmental, that brings together all levels of government, including First Nations government in the review. We need to have a process that is informed by independent science and allows for a true ability to challenge science put forward by the proponent.

"We need a process that integrates as opposed to fractures the spheres of responsibility."

Trudeau’s Broken Promise

On the campaign trail prior to the last federal election, the Liberal party and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to overhaul Canada’s pipeline review process in order to restore public faith in the process.

During a campaign stop on the west coast in August 2015, Prime Minister Trudeau told Kai Nagata, communications director with the Dogwood Initiative, the NEB overhaul would apply to the Kinder Morgan review process.

“That process needs to be redone,” Trudeau said, but later backed down from that promise and allowed the review process to continue on as it had begun.

“I think it’s disappointing the Liberal government did not follow through with its campaign promise to overhaul the NEB,” Nagata told DeSmog Canada

“What they have is a shell that has lost all democratic accountability, that is 90 per funded by industry and has said yes to every pipeline that has come their way. That’s a 100 per cent track record, so good for them.”

This week the Liberals established a three-person panel to conduct consultations with First Nations and communities along the pipeline route, something Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr said will help restore credibility to the pipeline approval process.

The creation of the panel, however, has been roundly criticized as a smokescreen meant to placate a public frustrated with an inadequate review process.

In the House of Commons Burnaby South NDP MP Kennedy Stewart said the Prime Minister promised to fix the broken review system, “and the people of B.C. believed him.”

Questioning the Minister on Kinder Morgan

Today in Parliament, I asked the Liberal Government why it broke its promise to British Columbians on Kinder Morgan. Check out the clip below…

Posted by Kennedy Stewart on Tuesday, May 17, 2016

“But this week the National Energy Board will report on Kinder Morgan using the exact same broken process as the Conservatives,” he said.

“The Liberals’ new ad-on process,” Kennedy added, “little more than a smokescreen, actually does nothing to fix the NEB review process.”

Nagata said Minister Carr’s defense of the consultation panel was troubling.

“Minister Carr came very close to promising an approval by this December, making fun of the previous government for not successfully approving a pipeline and ensuring industry the advisory panel he appointed will not get in the way.”

“Ultimately we think these decisions are too important to leave up to politicians. These people are in office for four years, their timelines are short, whereas the First Nations and citizens who live here have to live with the costs for decades.”

Nagata said Dogwood is campaigning for a provincial vote on tankers off the B.C. coast. “Luckily we have this mechanism in B.C. to put the decision to citizens directly.”

Rueben George, chief of the Tsliel-Waututh First Nation, which lies directly across the Burrard Inlet from Kinder Morgan’s facilities, said he is not at all surprised by today’s NEB recommendation.

“My reaction….I barely had a reaction,” George told DeSmog Canada. “I had no faith in the process. The process historically approves pipelines. I’m not surprised in the least.”

George said the news comes as he is attending a Burrard Inlet Science Symposium at Stanley Park.

“We’re going to clean up the Burrard Inlet and eat shellfish from here for the first time in 30 years,” George said. His nation is currently leading a legal challenge against the Kinder Morgan review, saying the process failed to adequately involve First Nations.

“We’ve been implementing our plan for how we’re going to stop Kinder Morgan and we’re going to continue on with that, being stewards of the land. What we’re really doing here when we stand up against Kinder Morgan we’re looking out for the best interest of the land and waters but it’s truly for the best interests of Canadians.”

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.

Christy Clark recently turned down the opportunity to limit foreign and corporate donations to political parties in campaigns. She justified her position by simply stating, “I represent everyone.”   Yet a new poll conducted by Insights West found the vast majority of British Columbians — 86 per cent — support a ban on both corporate and union political donations.   The poll, conducted on behalf of the Dogwood Initiative, a democracy advocacy organization, suggests Clark’s cozy relationship with major foreign and corporate donors could put her in the hot seat leading into the province’s next election.   That seat is likely to be even hotter after revelations Clark takes a cut of funds donated to the B.C. Liberal party through exclusive cash-for-access events that can cost up to $20,000 dollars to attend.   A high percentage of B.C. Liberal donors, 81 per cent, and an even higher number of B.C. NDP voters, 91 per cent, support putting a ban on corporate and union donations before the next election.

B.C. has long been called the “wild west of campaign donations” because, unlike most other provinces in Canada, it has no rules to prevent unlimited, foreign, union and corporate money from pouring into elections.    It’s a problem the Dogwood Initiative would like to see remedied through its Ban Big Money campaign before British Columbians hit the polls in early 2017. The group’s recent House of Cards-esque trailer for the corrupting influence of money in B.C. elections has been viewed on Facebook over 85,000 times.

BC's House of Cash

With apologies to Netflix, here's the high-stakes drama British Columbians can't get enough of: http://BanBigMoney.ca #BanBigMoney

Posted by Dogwood Initiative on Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Kai Nagata, energy and democracy director at Dogwood, said B.C. has created a situation “that has made bribery legal.”   He said the recent spate of arrests of cabinet ministers in Quebec on corruption and fraud charges were for activities “commonplace and totally protected by law in B.C.”   Recent Elections B.C. data on 2015 political donations shows that since 2005 the B.C. Liberal party raised $70.2 million from corporate and business donors. In that same period three donors exceeded donations of one million: Encana Corporation at $1.1 million, the Aquilini Group ($1.2 million) and Teck Resources ($2.3 million).

“So you ask companies, ‘why would you donate that money to a political party?’ It’s not charity; it’s an investment because you get something back,” Nagata said.   “You get policy decidedly tilted in favour of people who are able to fund political campaigns and ordinary citizens have their voices diluted in this process.”   “You go anywhere in this province and it’s hard not to see that virtually everything is for sale,” Nagata said, listing contracts for the Site C dam, B.C.’s trophy hunting, U.S. coal exports, LNG projects and the contemptible Vancouver real estate scene.   “There are a lot of decisions by government —decisions or calculated inaction — that amount to outcomes that are against public interest.”   “In B.C. because laws are so permissive people can donate unlimited amounts of money from overseas,” Nagata said. “So you don’t even have to be from Canada to have a say in public policy in B.C.”   Dermod Travis from IntegrityBC said there are a number of issues with political donations in B.C. that cause him concern.   “The most concerning thing is that money is being donated by corporations and individuals that can’t vote in the province,” Travis said. “If you can’t check a ballot, you shouldn’t be allowed to donate funds.”   Travis said British Columbians are worried about the level of influence companies like Encana and Teck Resources are able to purchase with consistently large donations.   “With Encana you see exactly what kind of sweetheart deals people have come to expect,” he said.   Travis said the BC Liberals consistently award contracts to companies that are party donors.   “Look at the companies that Partnerships B.C. has awarded construction contracts to and you will see a direct correlation between being contracts and being a donor to the BC Liberals.”   “People don’t have enough assurance the government is protecting the public’s interest, rather than corporate interests,” he said.   Travis also criticized the data publicly released by Elections B.C., saying the documents aren’t easily searchable which creates convenient loopholes for individuals who want to mask their donations.   “There are little tricks that get played in the process,” Travis said. “I’ll use my own name as an example: if you were to use the Elections B.C. database and search Dermod Travis any donations I made as Dermod J. Travis would not show up and that’s a problem.”   Both individuals and companies take advantage of this “initial game,” Travis said, “you might be left with the impression it was done deliberately so you couldn’t find their donations.”   He said an outright ban on corporate donations and a strict cap on individual donations would eliminate that problem.   “I think it creates an incredible level of cynicism that’s going to take a long time to remove even with a ban on these types of donations,” Travis said.   “It creates sense that there are winners and losers and the only way to be a winner is to be a donor.”   By leaving donor rules so open, government is fostering a sense of mistrust in the public, Nagata said.   “By refusing to take action to limit corporate money in elections they are leaving the question to voters: is government making decisions on behalf of citizens and in the public interest or are those decisions informed by the amount of money donated to politicians’ campaigns by these large corporations?”   “Obviously you don’t give someone a million dollars and say do whatever you want. There’s an expectation of a quid pro quo,” Nagata said.   “Citizens can’t collectively donate that amount of money to balance that influence — all you have is your vote,” Nagata said. “People don’t even do that because they feel cynical about the whole process.”   “That’s what we see, that’s our diagnosis. It seems the solution is simple: the government could restore public trust by not taking money from these outside influences and ensure they are making decisions on behalf of those who elected them.”

For more on political donations and how they cost taxpayers money, watch Kai Nagata break it down in this video below:  

How corruption can increase your tax bill

B.C.'s weak political donation laws leave the door open to corruption. Corruption destroys democracy and costs taxpayers, too. Join the movement to #BanBigMoney in B.C. politics: www.BanBigMoney.ca

Posted by Dogwood Initiative on Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Image: Province of British Columbia/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 federal government announced on Wednesday the upstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with pipeline projects will be taken into consideration when federal cabinet makes its decisions on pipeline projects.

“We are considering direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions,” Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, said. McKenna along with Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr made the announcement.

“Today’s announcement is a great step forward and shows the federal government is listening to Canadians,” Kai Nagata, Dogwood Initiative’s energy and democracy director, told DeSmog Canada. “The dark days of the National Energy Board are coming to an end.”

The new measures will apply to pipeline projects currently under regulatory review, such as Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain and TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline projects, according to Carr. Five principles that proposed pipelines will be measured against were unveiled. One of those includes "meaningful consultation" for Indigenous peoples.

“This is a real test of this government’s commitments to uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples," said Clayton Thomas-Muller, 350.org’s Stop it at the Source Campaigner. "At the heart of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the right to free, prior and informed consent. That means Indigenous Peoples have the right to say ‘No’ when it comes to projects like pipelines and its responsibility of the government to listen.”

The changes are too little, too late, according to Ecojustice lawyer Karen Campbell.

“These interim measures are a welcome band-aid, but they are not enough to inject science and evidence-based decision-making into the Kinder Morgan review process," Campbell said. "The outcome of the National Energy Board review must still be to reject this project, until the flaws in the application are remedied, and the full regional impacts of the project are fully considered.”

Both ministers were clear upstream and direct GHG emissions will be “a factor in the decision making process." How much weight a project’s GHG emissions will be given compared to its economic benefits is unclear.

“Climate plays into the economic viability of these projects,” Adam Scott, climate and energy program manager with Environmental Defence Canada, said. “How do these projects fit into a world of high carbon taxes and shifting away from oil?”

Like Nagata, Scott says he is “very encouraged” the federal government is listening to Canadians. However, he is concerned Carr, although acknowledging the problems with the current National Energy Board, is still allowing the review of Energy East to go ahead without reforming the board first. The National Energy Board is Canada’s federal pipeline regulator.

“There’s no legal reason for Energy East to go through the old broken process,” Scott told DeSmog Canada. “The review hasn’t even started yet and the board has not determined if TransCanada’s application is complete.”

Wednesday’s announcement has little effect on the workings of the National Energy Board itself. The Environment Ministry, not the Board, will conduct the assessments of a project’s greenhouse gas emissions. The five principles are transition measures to be kept in place until an overhaul of the NEB can take place.

McKenna said revamping the board could take “a number of years.”

The federal government will also extend the timeframes in which decisions on Energy East and Trans Mountain must be made. Legislative changes under the previous Conservative government mandated that proposed pipelines made it through the regulatory process within 15 months.

An extra six months will now be tacked on to the review of the Energy East pipeline. For the Trans Mountain pipeline, which is in its final round of hearings, no federal decision will be made until December of this year.

“The fact there’ll be no construction on Trans Mountain this summer is good news for people of B.C.’s Lower Mainland,” Nagata said.

The extra time is meant to give the federal government more time to assess emissions, consult with Indigenous peoples and the general public in what Carr describes as “setting up a process beyond the NEB’s mandate and timelines.”

Nagata welcomes this decision as well, but questions still remain.

“How do you put a timeline on meaningful consultations with First Nations?” Nagata asked.

Another unanswered question and an issue most Canadian politicians tend to dance around is how does an oil pipeline pass a climate test?

“A climate test on pipelines is only meaningful if it respects the commitment to 1.5ºC that Prime Minister Trudeau made in Paris, and that would mean taking pipelines and tar sands expansion off the table,” Cameron Fenton, 350.org’s tarsands organizer stated in a media release.

“There’s no such thing as a climate-friendly pipeline. The science is crystal clear: in order to prevent catastrophic climate change, fossil fuels, and especially tar sands, need to stay in the ground,” Fenton said.

Alberta-based energy think tank Pembina Institute estimates the annual greenhouse gas emissions from the Energy East pipeline (1.1 million barrels per day capacity) are the equivalent of putting an additional seven million cars on the road.

Twenty-seven climate experts in a 2014 open letter projected Trans Mountain “alone is expected to lead to 50 per cent more carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions each year than all of British Columbia currently produces.”

Wednesday’s announcement comes on the heels of a recent backlash by pro-pipeline politicians against Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre, who announced last week that 82 Montreal-area municipalities oppose the Energy East pipeline.

For the last month, First Nations, environmental organizations and politicians such as Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan have called on the federal government to suspend the current regulatory reviews of existing pipeline projects until after the promised overhaul of the National Energy Board.

Image Credit: Screenshot CBC News

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 next round of the National Energy Board’s (NEB) hearings for the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline are scheduled to begin January 19 in Vancouver, B.C.

Climate advocates and critics of the National Energy Board are disappointed the review process will continue on under rules established by the previous federal government, especially since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau campaigned on a promise to make the process more credible and evidence-based.

The Liberal party platform promised to immediately review the process, restoring “robust oversight and thorough environmental assessments” as well as restoring “lost protections” eliminated during the former government’s sweeping changes to environmental law. 

At a campaign stop in August 2015, Trudeau told Kai Nagata, energy and democracy director at the Dogwood Initiative, that the NEB overhaul would apply to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline.

“Yes. Yes,” Trudeau said. “It applies to existing projects, existing pipelines as well.”

“Okay,” Nagata said. “So if they approve Kinder Morgan in January, you’re saying…”

“No, they’re not going to approve it in January. Because we’re going to change the government,” Trudeau responded. “And that process needs to be redone.”

Trudeau on Kinder Morgan

Justin Trudeau says if he's Prime Minister, Kinder Morgan will have to go back to the drawing board, saying "the process needs to be redone." Find out where candidates in your riding stand: http://votebc.ca/

Posted by Dogwood Initiative on Friday, August 21, 2015

However in November, Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr announced ongoing pipeline reviews will continue on while the federal government considers new rules.

“There will be a transition as we amend the ways in which the National Energy Board goes about the process of evaluating these projects,” Minister Carr said in November, “and we will announce those changes as soon as we can, but the process continues.”

Nagata said Trudeau’s promise is not being upheld.

“Clearly something has happened between the dying days of the election and today to give the government pause with regard to its promise to revamp the Kinder Morgan process,” he said.

“What’s difficult to stomach is everyone, including the Liberals, agrees there is a problem with the process.”

Nagata said this week’s decision by the B.C. Supreme Court that the province failed to uphold its duty to consult First Nations regarding the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline only adds to the feeling of frustration.

“The circumstances are exactly the same for Trans Mountain,” he said. “In this context we have these hearings going on that everyone agrees is a sham, but the First Nations, municipalities, and intervenors are expected to continue on, basically doffing their cap to the panel as they present their final evidence.”

“It’s humiliating for the province, for First Nations, intervenors and the taxpayers who supported the scientific work done in this review,” he said.

Clayton Thomas Muller, climate campaigner with 350.org, said the Trans Mountain hearings should not go ahead.

“By letting these reviews proceed the Prime Minister is breaking the promise he made on the campaign trail to stop reviewing pipelines using Stephen Harper’s rules,” he said.

“This government can’t meet its commitments on climate or Indigenous rights and push forward with pipeline reviews that ignore climate change, community voices and the duty to consult with Indigenous peoples,” Thomas Muller, Stop it at the Source Campaigner with 350.org, said.

Thomas Muller spent the morning in the office of Minister Jim Carr as part of a People’s Injunction action organized by 350.org. Campaigners said they were performing a “people’s search and seizure” for new pipeline review rules.

“If they don’t have a new process here today, they should cancel these projects before the Kinder Morgan hearings start on Monday,” Thomas Muller said.

“Without considering climate change or listening to community voices, especially First Nations, these reviews are still little more than a rubber stamp for unnecessary, dangerous fossil fuel projects.”

The climate advocacy organization is planning actions across Canada as part of the People’s Injunction to ask for a cancellation or suspension of pipeline reviews until new rules are put in place. 

Peter McCartney, climate campaigner with the Wilderness Committee said the organization is “very disappointed” the review will continue on under the current regime.

“There was a promise made to restore credibility to these hearings,” he said. “If these hearings aren't good enough for future projects, they're not good enough now.”

The Wilderness Committee publicly withdrew as an intervenor from the Trans Mountain review in August, criticising the process as unfair and biased with a predetermined outcome. The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society as well as 33 other individuals also abandoned their position as intervenors in the process in August, following other high-profile withdrawals from for CEO of ICBC, Robyn Allan, and former CEO of BC Hydro, Marc Elisen.

“Canadians deserve an environmental review process they can trust, that takes into account climate impacts and properly consults with First Nations,” McCartney said.

“It looks like we made the right decision in pulling out of the hearings and taking our message straight to the Prime Minister.”

You can click here to read more about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and climate change.

Image: 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.

Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr told reporters Wednesday that ongoing oil pipeline reviews will continue on as usual, despite a promise by the Liberal government to make the environmental assessment process more robust.

“They have not stopped,” Carr said. “The process continues.”

Ongoing National Energy Board reviews will continue for projects like the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion even though the Liberal party platform promised an immediate review of the process, saying the renewed assessments will “restore robust oversight and thorough environmental assessments” and “restore lost protections” resulting from weakened environmental laws under the Stephen Harper government.

Minister Carr indicated the National Energy Board review process will undergo a transition but until that time, project reviews will remain unchanged.

“There will be a transition as we amend the ways in which the National Energy Board goes about the process of evaluating these projects,” Minister Carr said, “and we will announce those changes as soon as we can, but the process continues.”

The announcement has some wondering what to make of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s assertion that a more robust process would apply to the to Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline.

In August, Dogwood Initiative’s Energy and Democracy Director Kai Nagata pressed Trudeau to confirm if an NEB overhaul would apply to the Kinder Morgan project.

“Yes. Yes,” Trudeau said. “It applies to existing projects, existing pipelines as well.”

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Trudeau on Kinder Morgan

Justin Trudeau says if he's Prime Minister, Kinder Morgan will have to go back to the drawing board, saying "the process needs to be redone." Find out where candidates in your riding stand: http://votebc.ca/

Posted by Dogwood Initiative on Friday, August 21, 2015

“Okay,” Nagata said. “So if they approve Kinder Morgan in January, you’re saying…”

“No, they’re not going to approve it in January. Because we’re going to change the government,” Trudeau responded. “And that process needs to be redone.”

After the Obama administration's recent refusal of the Keystone XL pipeline through the U.S. and a nearly dead Northern Gateway on B.C. northern coast, Kinder Morgan is upping its efforts to ensure the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion goes ahead.

On Friday Trudeau publicly released ministerial mandate letters, including one to Minister Carr that instructed him to “immediately review Canada’s environmental assessment processes to regain public trust and introduce new, fair processes” as well as “modernize the National Energy Board.”

“You can't slap some new paint on the Conservative review process and call it credible after campaigning against it,” Keith Stewart, energy and climate campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, said.

“I don’t see how the Trudeau government can continue with the review of a pipeline under rules that Trudeau has denounced for ignoring climate impacts, failing to respect Indigenous rights, and lacking a grounding in sound science.”

This week marks the passing of one year since hundreds of protesters gathered on Vancouver’s Burnaby Mountain to disrupt crews performing exploratory drilling for the Trans Mountain pipeline.

A massive loss of faith in the NEB process was on full display on Burnaby Mountain after nearly 500 citizens were prevented from participating as intervenors in the Trans Mountain hearings.

This included a group of 27 climate experts, including economists, scientists and academics.

The National Energy Board also quietly removed oral hearings from the process, which means oral cross-examination and testimony under oath are no longer part of the review.

These procedural deficits have made it easy for Kinder Morgan to refuse to answer questions from expert interveners, such as lawyers from Ecojustice.

Even the province of B.C. has been put in a position where it must fight Kinder Morgan for basic information about the expansion project. In early 2015, DeSmog Canada revealed that the company was refusing to release spill response plans to the B.C. government, even though the same spill response plans had been made available to the public in Washington State.

Beyond that, the review process has excluded local First Nations to such an extent the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, which is located directly across the Burrard Inlet from Kinder Morgan’s facilities, launched a legal action to challenge the credibility of the review process.

Last fall, energy executive Marc Eliesen publicly abandoned his role as an intervenor in the review process, calling it “fraudulent” and an act of “public deception.” Eliesen accused the board of engaging in a process that was rigged with a “pre-determined outcome.”

The current pipeline review process also considers upstream oilsands impacts to the environment and climate outside the scope of a relevant environmental assessment.

Terry Beech, Liberal MP in Burnaby North-Seymour, told the Burnaby NOW no decision on the Kinder Morgan pipeline would be made under the current system.

“We are going to redo the National Energy Board process,” Beech said. “We’re going to broaden the scope. We’re going to make sure it’s objective, fair and based on science.

“We’re going to make sure proponents of any major energy projects, including Kinder Morgan, have to work towards getting community support and support from partner First Nations,” he said.

“We’ve already said there will be no decision on Kinder Morgan in January. Kinder Morgan will have to go through a new, revised process.”

Image: Burnaby Mountain protest by Zack Embree

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

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has been Prime Minister for nearly 72 hours and for a large number of people, Canada is well into the 'Everything is Awesome' phase of his tenure.

But for some, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's honeymoon is already over. It ended around noon when he released a statement on Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, describing his administration as "disappointed." To them it is a glaring "told-you-so" moment — one that exposes Trudeau once and for all as a corporate, right-of-centre wolf in progressive’s clothing. 

But what if it's not that moment? 

If anything, Canadians have seen that Trudeau is a savvy politician. During these early days in office he’s got a lot of politicking to do — and not just with Canadians worried about the climate.

In the same statement that Trudeau expressed his disappointment, he also pivoted to focusing on clean energy jobs.

“The Government of Canada will work hand-in-hand with provinces, territories and like-minded countries to combat climate change, adapt to its impacts and create the clean jobs of tomorrow,” the statement read.

So before anyone gets themselves in a tizzy, let's take a look at Trudeau's position on pipelines more generally and explore the nuance of today's important announcement.

Trudeau’s Keystone XL Support

In October 2013 the Liberal party backed the Keystone XL pipeline and won confidence from oil industry supporters when Trudeau told the Calgary Petroleum Club, “Let me be clear: I support Keystone XL.”

But Trudeau also added, “Perhaps the greatest indictment of the [Conservative] government is this: it has had the better part of a decade to remove the barriers preventing the U.S. from approving this project.”

“The [Conservative government] poked and prodded, annoyed and irritated the Obama administration at every turn. Largely, I suspect, because they don’t know how to work with people who don’t share their ideology."

This dovetails with what Foreign Minister Stephane Dion indicated yesterday: Canada wants to take on a more refined diplomatic approach to relations with the U.S.

“We don’t want it to be an irritant…we understand the Americans have to look at this very closely,” Dion said.

Both Dion and Trudeau indicated that although they support the Keystone XL, they respect the decision-making authority of the Obama administration — something the Harper government continuously strained diplomatic relations by failing to do. During his years of lobbying for the pipeline, Harper forcefully said he wouldn’t “take no for an answer” and called its approval a “no brainer.”

Trudeau responded to Obama’s decision to reject the pipeline Friday by saying, “We are disappointed by the decision but respect the right of the United States to make the decision. …The Canada-U.S. relationship is much bigger than any one project and I look forward to a fresh start with President Obama to strengthen our remarkable ties in a spirit of friendship and co-operation."

Trudeau’s Energy Diplomacy

The Prime Minister is playing a politically smart game, according to Kai Nagata, Director of Energy and Democracy at the Dogwood Initiative, by remaining consistent in their position on Keystone while acknowledging Canada’s relationship with the U.S. transcends this one issue.

"The undiplomatic conduct of the previous government gave Obama a lot of political cover to reject this project," Nagata said.

He added that in the years since Trudeau publicly backed the Keystone industry has been forced into retreat by plummeting oil prices.

"The Liberals committed their support to Keystone XL when oil prices were over a hundred dollars a barrel,” he said. “The world has changed a lot since then."

During the federal election the Conservatives lost 18 seats in British Columbia, Nagata said, in large part because of energy issues linked to the contentious Northern Gateway and TransMountain pipelines.

British Columbians are awaiting Trudeau’s final word on the deflated Northern Gateway pipeline, a project that, like Keystone, has been symbolic in the grassroots fight to prevent growing fossil fuel infrastructure.

Trudeau has also promised to revamp the National Energy Board’s pipeline review process to ensure environmental assessments take upstream and climate impacts into consideration — something the Harper government refused to do.

On the campaign trail, Trudeau told Nagata an overhaul of the review process would apply retroactively to the TransMountain pipeline expansion which is currently under review.

Nagata said a new political field has opened up for leaders like Trudeau and Obama when it comes to fossil fuel infrastructure.

“I think that the drop in oil prices helped create the political conditions for a domino effect around these pipelines because the market case for them isn’t there right now.”

Trudeau's Promise of Stronger Industry Regulations and Pipeline Reviews

Along with pledging a tanker ban on British Columbia's north coast and opposing the Northern Gateway Pipeline, the new Prime Minister has also refused to back the Energy East pipeline, and promised a more robust pipeline review process.

Trudeau said environmental assessments under the Harper government were "politically torqued" and required an overhaul.

Thursday Liberal party House Leader Dominic LeBlanc said the government recognizes Energy East could have economic benefits, but indicated a stronger review process will be critical to the pipeline’s success.

"I also recognize in the same breath that in order to get such a complicated project approved, there have to be robust and stringent and independent environmental reviews," LeBlanc said.

"And there has to be a much more concerted effort on the part of the government of Canada — and to be honest the company and the provincial governments, I think have recognized this — but the federal government was pretty absent, in terms of working with communities and First Nations and trying to build understanding, information and support around a process of review that is credible and independent."

If all of this comes to pass, then Northern Gateway is consigned to the dustbin of history and both the Kinder Morgan TransMountain expansion and TransCanada's Energy East pipeline will start their reviews again under new tougher regulations. Environmentalists, however, are sensibly skeptical— especially about the Liberals apparent dissonance between acting on climate while growing the fossil fuel sector.

“Obama has sent a clear message that you can’t be a climate leader and build pipelines, a message that Prime Minister Trudeau cannot ignore,” Caitlyn Vernon, campaigns director for Sierra Club BC, said.

Karen Mahon, executive director of ForestEthics Advocacy, echoed the sentiment.

“This rejection sets an important precedent in the run up to the Paris climate talks that we hope Prime Minister Trudeau will take to heart — we cannot protect the climate and approve more pipelines and expand the tar sands. Approving pipelines while claiming climate leadership is clear contradiction,” Mahon said.

"To Change Everything, We Need Everyone"

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is less than a week into the most important job of his life. Like President Obama, he came into it on the heels of an extremely unpopular predecessor. He promised hope, change and a different way of governing. He has an extremely ambitious agenda which will require reaching out to industry, business, other politicians and environmentalists and getting them to work together to be successful. And he needs to do it all in with the legacy of his father's 'National Energy Plan' looming over his head for a still-angry subset of western Canadians. 

Trudeau’s response today may signal a conciliatory posture towards the pipeline industry and a sign that campaign promises are little more than hot air. Or it can also be seen as a first measured response to the complex political challenge ahead of him.

For the moment, the majority of Canadians seem content to believe the latter. 

Image: 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.