This article is re-published with permission from mikedesouza.com

As some of you may know, I’ll be starting a new role in January 2015 as an investigative resources correspondent for Reuters.

Getting access to records about government decisions and policies has long played a key role in the work of many journalists around the world. It will also be a key element for me in the weeks, months and years to come.

So to end off 2014, here are a few examples of some of my recent experiences with government efforts to either release or hide information.

Canada’s information watchdog has noted that the Supreme Court of Canada recognizes access to information as a quasi-constitutional right of all Canadians.

Obtaining access to information is an extension of freedom of expression since it allows the population to be informed and speak about government policies and decisions on how these governments spend public money.

Deleted records at the Canada Revenue Agency

The Canada Revenue Agency took more than a day to answer some basic questions about its decision to delete some instant messaging records of its employees.

You can find my report on this case over here in the Toronto Star.

The CRA declined to answer some of my questions directly, including whether it had verified whether any of the information deleted was of “business value.” By law, all Canadian government organizations are required to preserve records of “business value.”

When I asked some simple follow up questions – including whether any of its senior officials or media officers ever communicate with the minister or with Conservative political staffers in her office using text messages – the CRA called to complain that it wasn’t reasonable for me to ask these questions and expect them to respond within a couple of hours.

The Canada Revenue Agency instructs bureaucrats to delete logs and disable future logging of instant messages of its employees.

More than a week after I first asked questions and requested an interview with its commissioner, the CRA confirmed it was logging Internet activity of its employees – including on their mobile devices – in case it needed this information to review potential cases of misconduct, but that it wasn’t logging their text messages. Why does it keep one set of logs and not the other?

The CRA declined to answer this question.

You can find some of the emails detailing the CRA instructions to delete records of instant messages over here.

Foreign Affairs: This reporter’s question is “undeserving of a response”

Last summer, Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development wasn’t providing a lot of information about its relationship with the American Legislative Exchange Council. The council, also known as ALEC, is a secretive organization. It benefits from charitable status based on its mandate to “educate” U.S. state legislators by connecting them with corporations to draft model pieces of legislation.

A series of high-tech firms including Google left ALEC in recent months because it continued to host discussions of people without scientific credentials that cast doubt about peer-reviewed research showing the link between human activity and climate change.

“I will suggest we decline the two requested interviews.” – John Babcock, spokesman for Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

Canadian diplomats have had some exchanges with members of ALEC as part of the federal government’s efforts to promote the oilsands and TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline. But senior diplomats declined to grant interviews, which led me to write a series of detailed questions to the department in writing.

The department sent me some general and vague statements about who Canadian diplomats were meeting and what they were discussing.

In response to questions asking for details about diplomatic discussions with lobbyists on energy issues, a Canadian government spokesman recommended evasive answers before getting feedback from diplomats about whether they had the answers. This spokesman told his colleagues in internal e-mails that he believed I was “attempting to make specious connections.” He also said one of my questions was “undeserving of a response.”

He also suggested declining the interview requests, without even knowing the answers to the questions raised.

One Canadian diplomat also sent an e-mail to other officials in the department asking them to tell the journalist that she was “not available” for an interview.

You can find these internal e-mails here.

Transport Canada’s vacant rail safety positions

Over a span of several weeks, Transport Canada declined to answer a series of basic questions about critical positions that are vacant in its rail safety and dangerous goods divisions – vacancies that appear to date back to at least 2009.

It confirmed it had vacant oversight and inspector positions within its dangerous goods and rail safety divisions but it declined to identify them or even confirm whether it knew exactly how many of these positions were vacant.

After Reuters reported on internal records detailing these vacancies, the federal New Democrats attempted to raise the issue in Parliament.

In response to questions from NDP deputy leader Megan Leslie in the House of Commons, the parliamentary secretary to the transport minister, Jeff Watson, said that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government wouldn’t apologize for cutting “waste.”

“We make no apologies for reducing back office expenses while putting the resources where they belong on front-line safety,” Watson said.

The government declined to share details of what it had cut until it was forced to answer these questions through Canada’s Access to Information Act, which requires it to release public records upon request within 30 days to any Canadian who pays the $5 fee.

The records, received about 40 days after the request, confirm what Reuters had reported about vacant engineering and oversight positions. It also revealed these surprising details:

– All six senior positions in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods secretariat, including the manager, are vacant

– Five out of seven positions for scientists who review emergency response plans of companies transporting dangerous cargo are vacant at Transport Canada’s headquarters.

– Five out of seven positions at the headquarters are vacant for dangerous goods inspectors under chief enforcement

– Five out of 15 positions responsible for risk evaluation are vacant, including the chief of risk evaluation, and two accident analysts.

Liberal transportation critic David McGuinty said in an interview that the department appeared to be hiding information.

“Instead of coming clean and saying, we have a capacity problem right now, they won't do it,” said McGuinty in an interview. “They’ve got some explaining to do.”

You can find these records and the information that Transport Canada previously declined to release over here.

Or scroll down below to see the e-mail records from both Foreign Affairs; the charts of vacant and filled Transport Canada positions; and the e-mails from the CRA sending instructions from the office of the agency’s commissioner and chief executive officer for the deletion of internal records.

In terms of transparency, a public servant — who tipped me off about one of these stories — told me that all ministers in the Canadian government are transparent … because you can look right through them and see the prime minister’s office in the background.

Photo: Light Brigading via Flickr

CRA Delete Request by mikedesouza

DFATD underserving by mikedesouza

Dangerous Goods Chart Transport Canada by mikedesouza

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

This article originally appeared on mikedesouza.com.

You may have seen this report in the Toronto Star about a mysterious end to a secretive group [an oil and gas pollution committee] that was created to draft new rules to reduce carbon pollution from oil and gas companies.

Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq was asked about the long-delayed rules for oil companies on Tuesday in the House of Commons by NDP environment critic Megan Leslie.

Aglukkaq responded by changing the topic.

“We have taken action on some of the largest sources of emissions in this country, the transportation and the electricity-generation sector,” said Aglukkaq in the Commons. “I’m also looking forward to taking part in the UN climate summit in New York next week to speak to Canada’s record in taking action on climate change.”

Leslie recommended that the federal government should “quit stalling” in addressing climate change.

“After seven years of the government’s broken promises to introduce greenhouse gas rules for the oil and gas sector Canadians are still waiting,” Leslie said.

“Now we hear that Environment Canada has stopped talking to the industry and the Alberta government altogether. In fact, the (federal) government-led committee hasn’t met since March 2013. When will this government quit stalling and when will we see the regulations?”

David McLaughlin, a former senior Conservative government staffer who later led a federal advisory panel on the environment and economy, said any delays in action would increase economic risks.

“Delay in tackling Canada’s top emitting source is short-term economic gain for long-term economic risk,” said McLaughlin, an adviser on sustainability issues at the University of Waterloo’s environment faculty who also served as chief of staff to former prime minister Brian Mulroney. “Market access will be more, not less, assured when Canada comes to grips with a carbon management plan for this sector.”

The latest comments coincided with a new international report – released by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate – that concluded countries could expand their economies by reducing carbon pollution.

Environment Canada estimated earlier this year that greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands increased by 307 per cent between 1990 and 2012. The carbon emissions were projected to grow a further 61 per cent before the end of the decade.

Scientists estimate that humans must reduce global emissions by up to 72 per cent in order to meet an international target, under the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, of preventing global warming of more than two degrees Celsius.

In a written statement, Environment Canada confirmed that the group working on oil and gas regulations had stopped meeting in March 2013.

“Since that time, Environment Canada has been engaging provinces, industry and others to discuss the potential for GHG emission reductions from the oil and gas sector,” wrote spokesman Danny Kingsberry in the statement. “As discussions evolved there was a need to explore the specific circumstances and variation within the sector and across the country, resulting in a move away from the working group structure and toward more targeted discussions. Our engagement is continuing on many fronts.”

He added that it would be “premature” to comment specifically about what the group was examining, since the regulations were still under development.

Former environment minister Peter Kent had said in February 2013 that the government was “very close” to finalizing the oil and gas carbon pollution rules.

Here are some questions and answers about the committee:

Who was on the committee? Representatives from three oil and gas companies –Cenovus, CNRL and Suncor as well as the industry lobby group – the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers were on the committee along with representatives from the Alberta government and Environment Canada, which was leading its work.

How do we know about the committee? The existence of the committee of industry and government representatives – created to write rules for industry – was a secret until it was uncovered through records released under access to information legislation.

When was it created? According to internal records, the committee was created in the fall of 2011 and met approximately once every four weeks, until March 2013.

What was it working on when it stopped meeting? According to internal federal and provincial records, the committee had studied a series of options for new regulations.

Responding to questions from the Toronto Star, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers vice president of policy and performance, Alex Ferguson, said it has “consistently” advocated for “balanced carbon policy” that consider the views of investors or would-be investors.

“We believe that government(s) need to move forward on this topic, and we have consistently advocated that they do so with careful and thorough consideration of all consequences – intended and unintended,” Ferguson told the Star.

Behind closed doors, internal records obtained by Greenpeace Canada through provincial freedom of information legislation revealed that industry lobbyists rejected proposals from the Alberta government to introduce tough rules, and instead suggested delaying action to allow for more “study, analysis and consultation.”

At that time, David Daly, the director of fiscal policy at the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers argued that tougher rules wouldn’t likely stop critics from asking companies to do more to reduce their climate change footprint.

The environmental lobby group blames the industry lobbyists for derailing the talks.

“This is what happens when a government opens the doors wide to the oil industry and shuts out everyone else,” said Keith Stewart, a Toronto-based climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace Canada. “The upstream oil and gas industry is now the biggest carbon polluter in the country precisely because the Harper government gives in every time they cry poor. Meanwhile, the public foots the ever-rising bill for climate disasters while the oil companies post record profits.”

Stewart said that the toughest proposal on the table from Alberta would tackle part of the increase at a cost of less than $1.00 per barrel of oil, “which is a very small drop in a very large bucket,” he said.

Oil Regs Secret

Image Credit: Kris Krug

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 MikeDeSouza.com and is republished here with permission.

Some 300 scientists are urging Prime Minister Stephen Harper to reject a report that recommended approval of a major oil pipeline to the west coast of British Columbia, describing it as a “flawed analysis” that downplayed key environmental impacts.

Following lengthy hearings, a review panel last December recommended approving Enbridge's Northern Gateway project – a 1,177 pipeline network that would send 525,000 barrels per day of bitumen, the heavy oil from Alberta’s oilsands, to Kitimat, B.C. The panel recommended 209 conditions be attached to the project approval.

But the scientists, led by Kai Chan, an associate professor and principal investigator at the University of British Columbia’s Connecting Human and Natural Systems Lab, sent Harper a letter on Monday concluding that the review’s final report wasn’t balanced and had five major flaws that made it “indefensible.”

“We urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject this report,” wrote the scientists, who are mainly from Canada and the United States.

The five major flaws of the review, as identified in the letter, were:

• A failure to articulate a rationale for numerous findings;
• Considering narrow risks, but broad benefits and an omission of key issues such as the environmental impacts of increased production in the oilsands;
• Relying on information from the project proponent, Enbridge, without an external review of the risks;
• A contradiction of official government documents such as threats identified in federal recovery plans for species at risk;
• An inappropriate treatment of uncertain risks and a reliance on yet-to-be developed mitigation measures.

Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford has said the government will make a decision on the project soon.

The Harper government hasn’t directly or openly stated its position on the project, but it has generally endorsed the idea of building new infrastructure to support expansion of Canada’s natural resources, starting with an open letter signed by former natural resources minister Joe Oliver — who is now finance minister — in January 2012, that attacked environmental groups and accused them of conspiring to hijack Canada’s economy with foreign funding.

Chan said the scientists are not trying to weigh in on the merits of the project, but instead are trying to highlight the “critical” mistakes made during the review that appear to downplay the risks.

He added that these weaknesses in the review don’t necessarily mean the project must be stopped.

“We recognize it’s not our call,” Chan said. “We just want to make sure that the decision doesn’t go forward relying upon a deeply flawed report as if it’s complete, balanced and accurate.”

Oliver’s 2012 letter kicked off an overhaul of Canada’s environmental laws that eventually led to the cancellation of nearly 3,000 environmental reviews of industrial projects in 2012.

One month before the letter was released, his deputy minister at Natural Resources Canada, Serge Dupont, drafted a series of personal notes that highlighted a strategy to “advance a strong and coordinated advocacy and communications plan, with early pre-positioning for legislative and other actions” including offering “support” for the Enbridge project, which would open up access to new markets in Asia for Canadian oil resources.

The oilsands are the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, the heat-trapping gases that contribute to climate change, in Canada. The Canadian government hasn’t introduced plans to slow down the oil industry’s pollution, even though its own estimates show that oilsands emissions growth would prevent Canada from meeting an international climate change commitment made by Harper.

Enbridge says the project would create about 560 long-term jobs and about 3,000 jobs during construction. But the project has also generated fierce opposition from First Nations communities and environmentalists, among others who say the economic and environmental risks of a catastrophe or long-term damage outweigh the potential benefits.

Scientists Enbridge NGP by mikedesouza

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.

Former TransCanada employee and engineer Evan Vokes, who released thousands of pages of records after he was dismissed by the corporation in 2012, believes that a newly acquired internal email shows his managers tried to discredit him for raising the alarm on their safety practices.

Vokes obtained the email in Feburary 2014 through access to information legislation, reports Mike De Souza for InsideClimate News. Most of the message was censored by TransCanada before release, but the first line clearly mentions "managing the EV [Evan Vokes] credibility issue."

"My understanding is that we have been reasonably successful at influencing authorities [redacted] and pointing out EV is disgruntled, and actually had the responsibility to correct these same matters and did not," reads the email, dated July 26, 2013.

TransCanada has not disclosed the identity of the employee who wrote the email or the "authorities" referred to in it. "We are not going to debate interpretations of the wording used by TransCanada staff members in old emails or private records," spokesman Davis Sheremata told InsideClimate News.

The previous records released by Vokes document internal safety issues raised within the energy company over its operations in Canada, as well as in the United States, where it hopes to build the proposed multibillion-dollar Keystone XL pipeline project. Vokes submitted the records as evidence when he appeared before a Canadian Senate committee hearing on energy policies in 2013.

The U.S. State Department, which is reviewing the Keystone XL project, declined to comment on whether they'd discussed Vokes with TransCanada. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration also declined to comment on the email.

Vokes believes TransCanada's management tried to discredit him because they got "fed up" with his allegations that the company was saving money by skimping on safety inspections and repairs.

 Pipeline section marked 'junk' by TransCanada. Photo by Dave Whitley via Flickr.

A pattern of dismissal 

"There are literally thousands of cracks in the system but they sit there until somebody disturbs them," Vokes told InsideClimate News in an interview. "Whether it's the ground or frost, construction in the area, or a farmer doing work, suddenly all these substandard construction techniques can become a major problem because they were never dealt with during construction."

Vokes's records include discussions that took place within TransCanada about safety concerns that management dismissed. In a January 2011 email exchange, an engineering technologist, Russell Wong, was told by management to "stop these e-mails" when he warned them not to hire a welding company based on its poor performance history. Another engineering technologist asked whether the company would provide inspectors to examine the Keystone pipeline in a June 2011 email. Manager Tom Hamilton, in charge of quality and compliance for Keystone, wrote "Ha ha ha" in his email response.

Another series of internal emails from June 2011 between Vokes and other engineers and managers documents how TransCanada employees were unable to find records on the company's welding procedures for months, after they were reqested by provincial regulator Alberta Boilers Safety Association.

In another June 2011 email, Vokes himself was told by David Taylor, a manager of materials and engineering, to stop raising concerns and "accept where we are and become aligned with where we are going as a company."

TransCanada said that it could not comment on Vokes' eventual dismissal or whether the managers in the emails were disciplined, because of privacy and confidentiality issues.

Breaking pipeline safety regulations and whistleblower protections in Canada

Vokes collected most of the records over his five years working at TransCanada, where he specialized in "non-destructive" examination of pipeline infrastructure using tools and visual inspections. His complaints about pipeline safety led the National Energy Board (NEB) to conduct an audit of TransCanada's operations, released February 2014. The NEB found no immediate safety concerns, but concluded that TransCanada was breaking Canadian pipeline regulations in areas including "Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Control…Inspection, Measurement and Monitoring; and Management Review."

Another audit on TransCanada's management, released April 24, found that the company's management wasn't meeting requirements to protect concerned whistleblowers like Vokes.

When asked by InsideClimate News about the email concerning Vokes, the NEB said that TransCanada did not try to interfere with the audits.

"At no time during numerous interactions between board staff and TransCanada staff did the company attempt to influence the board on the character of Mr. Vokes," NEB spokeswoman Erin Dottor said in an email. "The source of any complaint or issue identification in no way impacts the NEB's commitment to take action to mitigate or prevent potential hazards to public safety or environmental protection."

Keystone XL future uncertain

The controversy surrounding the proposed Keystone XL project has brought TransCanada's safety record under close scrutiny. The company's existing Keystone pipeline, which runs from Alberta to Oklahoma, has suffered at least 35 leaks or other incidents since it opened in June 2010. If built, the Keystone XL pipeline would transport 830,000 barrels per day (bpd) of oilsands crude from Alberta to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, crossing several sensitive U.S. water sources. Oilsands development is currently the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Canada.

The Obama administration's decision on Keystone XL has been continually delayed since the project was first proposed in 2008, and has met with opposition in both the United States and Canada. The final decision on the project isn't expected till November, owing to the latest hurdle–an ongoing court case over the pipeline's route through Nebraska.

Dave Domina, a lawyer representing Nebraska landowners challenging the Keystone XL pipeline's route, said that "TransCanada has a tug-of-war going on between environmental safety and profit." He said that the emails acquired by Vokes probably couldn't be used in the court case, however, though they come into play if the state is forced to restart the approval process.

Meanwhile, Vokes has been notified by the federal privacy commissioner's office that it is reviewing the censored portions of the documents released by TransCanada to him, after the company agreed to an audit. The privacy commissioner's investigator will be meeting with TransCanada management face to face after the materials are reviewed, though the company has asked that Vokes not be present.

Image Credit: TransCanada promotional video screen cap

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.

Last week, journalist Mike De Souza published his final article for Postmedia News. The outlet closed its Parliamentary Bureau dismissing De Souza and four other employees amid a scandalous revelation that senior staff are colluding with Canada’s largest oil and gas lobby, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), to shift the national conversation to more positively reflect on the energy industry, particularly Alberta’s oilsands.

De Souza’s final piece fittingly covered an internal memo that showed the Harper government was warned back in 2011 that a massive increase in oil-by-rail transport was impending, given the rate of oil production in the oilsands outstripped Canada’s pipeline capacity. The Harper government, despite such cautions, failed to address the safety concerns associated with such sharp growth in oil tanker train traffic. Two years later, the tragedy of Lac-Mégantic killed 47 people.

There’s no question that Mike De Souza has been crucial to the survival of investigative journalism on energy and environment in Canada over the last several years. His work has exposed government and industry collusion, shining a light behind closed doors and serving the public interest. He has detailed high-level climate change denial, suppression of scientists and environmental regulations and the high level of orchestration between the Harper government and the oil, gas and pipeline industries in the creation of the infamous Omnibus Budget Bill C-38.

Ultimately, De Souza’s reporting has provided Canadians with a critical counter-narrative to Harper government spin when it comes to climate, energy and the environment.

Here’s a list of just 20 stories worth highlighting and remembering from De Souza’s career with Postmedia News:

Climate denial and killing Kyoto

Thanks to a generous donation from a major oil and gas company, an anti-Kyoto Protocol group sets up some “research” accounts at the University of Calgary. Fighting through multiple freedom of information requests and a legal challenge, Postmedia News obtained hundreds of pages of receipts, letters and other evidence revealing that the money was used for ads during an election campaign, lobbying, marketing, travel, wining and dining, with donors eligible for tax receipts for charitable contributions.

The goal of the so-called research was to cast doubt on scientific evidence showing that the consumption of fossil fuels and other human activity was causing global warming and push the government to withdraw from the international Kyoto agreement on climate change.

This series of stories earned a citation at the 2012 National Newspaper Awards in the “investigations” category.

1) Talisman Energy kickstarted University of Calgary climate skeptic fund

2) University climate research accounts used for PR, travel, wining and dining: records

3) University of Calgary and Talisman distance themselves from global warming contrarians

Spin, PR and delays

Former Stephen Harper adviser Bruce Carson left the prime minister’s office and took over a University of Calgary based “think tank” with a fresh $15 million federal grant. He proceeded to change the research mandate of the Canada School of Energy and Environment (CSEE) so that it could contribute to a lobbying and marketing strategy to green the image of the oil and gas industry.

The plan was elaborate, involving secret meetings between government officials, industry reps from companies such as Exxon Mobil or BP, and diplomats. Their goal: to lobby foreign governments, to “kill” international action on climate change, and to ensure “the oil keeps a-flowing” from Alberta.

4) Bruce Carson changed research mandate

5) Canada’s oilsands strategy includes lobbying against global warming measures

6) Governments working with oil execs to curb oilsands criticism, documents show

7) Canada enlists Big Oil to help kill U.S. green policies

8) Conservatives deny diplomatic push to shield oilsands from U.S. environmental rules

9) Feds say industry organized PR strategy for oilsands

10) Feds spent nearly $54,000 on pro-oil lobbying retreat over two days in London, England

11) Harper deploys diplomats to counter U.S. climate change campaign

12) Diplomats targeted influential media to boost oilsands coverage in Europe

Reckless Resource Development

Days before announcing Canada would withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the federal government drafted plans for a “strong and coordinated” public relations campaign and major regulatory reforms to promote oil and pipeline industry expansion, say personal notes drafted by the top bureaucrat at Natural Resources Canada. His minister, Joe Oliver, was in the midst of getting briefed about what was at stake, as the federal Conservatives planned billions of dollars in cuts across the government, affecting scientists who monitored the impacts of industrial activity and eliminating thousands of federal environmental reviews of projects.

13) Secret Environment Canada study warns of oilsands’ impact on habitat 

14) Communications strategists deliberated on $60 million in cuts at Environment Canada

15) Joe Oliver doesn’t know very much about energy projects, emails reveal

16) Federal government planned strong PR campaign to promote oil industry

17) Bureaucrats told Stephen Harper’s government environmental reforms would be “very controversial,” records reveal

18) Stephen Harper’s government sent mixed messages to industry, First Nations about environmental reforms

19) Pipeline development was ‘top of mind’ in Stephen Harper’s budget bill, say “secret” records

20) Bureaucrats told Peter Kent reforms could undermine environmental protection

Do you have a favourite story of Mike De Souza’s that we didn’t include here? Let us know in the comments section.

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

A proposed public statement that acknowledged humans were “mostly responsible for climate change” and that Environment Canada took this threat “seriously” was dropped by environment minister Leona Aglukkaq in favour of a watered-down partisan message that made no meaningful mention of the issue of climate change, new documents show. The proposed statement, drafted for the release of the 2013 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was released to Postmedia’s Mike De Souza through access to information legislation.

The internal documents were a part of a larger Environment Canada communications strategy designed to raise awareness about climate change and the link between fossil fuel consumption and global warming, reports De Souza.

The statement, prepared for minister Aglukkaq, recommended she state Canada “takes climate change seriously, and recognizes the scientific findings that conclude that human activities are mostly responsible for this change.”

The 2013 IPCC report, the most definitive piece of scientific literature on climate change, concluded it was “extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming” in recent decades.

Upon release of that report, minister Aglukkaq read a new statement, using the opportunity to praise the Harper government for its action on climate change and condemn opposition parties for their policies.

“Unlike the previous Liberal government, under whose watch greenhouse gas emissions rose by almost 30 per cent, or the NDP, who want a $21 billion carbon tax, our Government is actually reducing greenhouse gases and standing up for Canadian jobs,” she said in a statement delivered September 27.

The two statements can be compared below:

Recommended statement:

On behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to thank and congratulate the Canadian scientists who worked on the Working Group I contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report.

The Government of Canada takes climate change seriously, and recognizes the scientific findings that conclude that human activities are mostly responsible for this change. As an Arctic nation, Canada profoundly understands the impacts of climate change and is taking action on many fronts to address climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change continues to provide policy-relevant scientific assessments that clearly document the significant changes underway in the climate system. Today’s report builds on the tradition of excellence that earned the IPCC the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

Ten Canadian scientists had lead roles and many others made contributions to this report. Their scientific expertise continues to improve our collective understanding of climate change.

This work once again showcases the world-class science that exists in the Government of Canada and throughout the Canadian scientific community. The Government of Canada takes great pride in the work of all its scientists, who contribute every day to the assessment and advancement of science, both at home and on the international stage.

Actual statement:

As an Arctic nation, Canada has been playing a leadership role in addressing climate change. Our Government has already taken action on two of the largest sources of emissions – namely transportation and coal-fired electricity. In fact, we were the first country to phase out traditional coal power generation. These actions are benefiting Canadians and their families.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, under whose watch greenhouse gas emissions rose by almost 30 per cent, or the NDP, who want a $21 billion carbon tax, our Government is actually reducing greenhouse gases and standing up for Canadian jobs.

The Government of Canada takes great pride in the work of all its scientists, who contribute every day to the assessment and advancement of science, both at home and on the international stage.

“It was a 100 per cent partisan attack document,” NDP environment critic Megan Leslie told Postmedia. “It didn’t talk about the issue of climate change.”

“The minister and the government have blinders on because it doesn’t suit their communications strategy,” Liberal environment critic John McKay told Postmedia. “I don’t think she actually runs the department. I think it is run out of the PMO.”

Green Party leader Elizabeth May said the statement had been “watered down politically.”

“It’s further indication that Stephen Harper and his cabinet simply don’t understand that the climate is a huge threat to Canada, to our kids, to our economy and we’re running out of time,” she said. “Stephen Harper doesn’t want to actually do anything that by his (opinion) impedes the oil and gas industry.”

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

In a CTV interview, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's environment minister Leona Aglukkaq seemed reluctant to admit that climate change was a scientifically proven reality.

Mike De Souza writes for Postmedia News, that "when asked whether the ice was melting in the Arctic, considered by climate scientists to be part of the evidence of global warming, Aglukkaq said there may or may not be changes underway."

During the interview, which was aired during CTV's daily political program Power Play, host Don Martin brought up the issue of disappearing arctic sea ice. Aglukkaq, who represents the riding of Nunavut in Parliament, responded that people like her in the north were "seeing those changes every day, or no changes, what have you."

She also said that "there was a report that came out yesterday, I have not received a copy of that but there's always a debate around science and what's changing."

When Martin asked her directly whether she was personally seeing evidence of climate change in the north, Aglukkaq once again refused to give an unambiguous answer, mentioning that the north had "had a particularly bad summer" with snow, and saying that it was "debatable."

Martin observed that what Aglukkaq was describing meant "changing climate, if not climate change," to which she laughed and said: "But it's also important to look at science and use science to make our decisions as best as we can and but to also continue to work with people in the north."

Minister Aglukkaq seemed reluctant to even say the words "climate change," stopping short of using the term when talking about a conference in Norway of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-lived Climate Pollutants.

"I was in Oslo, just recently at the climate ch- ah climate conference, ah environment ministers conference, sorry," she said.

De Souza notes that other members of Harper's cabinet have "openly questioned scientific evidence about climate change," including Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver. In an April interview, Oliver suggested that that scientists had "recently told us that our fears (about climate change) were exaggerated." He was unable to name said scientists or cite any of their research at the time.

Minister Aglukkaq's office did not initially provide comment on her interview. But following the Postmedia News story on Aglukkaq's comments, spokeswoman Amanda Gordon emailed saying that "Minister Aglukkaq was not casting doubt on climate change."

"Is it possible to correct the story?" Gordon asked Postmedia News.

Gordon also said that the CTV interview was conducted last month, and that Aglukkaq's comments were related to research published by the National Snow and Ice Data Centre. As De Souza writes, "this research confirmed the downward trend in summer Arctic sea ice but did not suggest there was any debate about what was happening."

Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for September 13, 2013 was 5.10 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles). The orange line shows the 1981 to 2010 median extent for that day. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Like Aglukkaq's own comments, her office's response did not provide any specific views on climate change. "Scientific debate regarding our understanding of climate change and its effects on Canada, particularly the North, is what Minister Aglukkaq was referencing," Gordon wrote.

De Souza writes that "Aglukkaq's office has failed to respond directly to questions from Postmedia News asking whether she believes scientific evidence justifies further action to stop the causes of climate change and adapt to its impacts" since her appointment in June.

De Souza notes that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a coalition of governments and scientists approved by Harper, has said in its first published report that "human influence has been detected in the warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes."

The report said that human activity, including deforestation and GHG emissions released by fossil fuels, have "very likely contributed to Arctic sea ice loss since 1979."

Aglukkaq's own department, Environment Canada, has predicted average global increases in temperature of at least two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2050.

De Souza draws attention to internal briefing notes from 2012 in which Environment Canada calls climate change "the most serious environmental issue facing the world today and carries with it significant impacts on human health and safety, the economy, natural resources, and ecosystems in Canada and throughout the world."

Some months ago, Aglukkaq, then health minister, took over as chairman of the eight-nation Arctic Council and signed a statement expressing an "urgent need" to reach a legally-binding deal to prevent human activity from further exacerbating global warming.

Image Credit: MaRS Discovery District / 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.

"About two weeks before the emissions trends report's release in 2012, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver was told in a memo that Environment Canada was still 'considering different media strategy options' for how and when the report would be announced. Natural Resources Canada also said that both departments had prepared 'responsive lines' in anticipation of questions from journalists. Similar lines would normally be developed for newly-appointed Environment Minister Leone Aglukkaq," writes De Souza.

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.

Government records newly released under access to information legislation say that Canada supports carbon pricing as part of a global climate change strategy.

Mike De Souza writes for Postmedia News, that the documents "come from the Privy Council Office and Environment Canada, and they contrast with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's public criticism of carbon taxes."

As De Souza explains, the Privy Council Office (PCO) is "the central department in the government that supports the prime minister's office."

The PCO notes were reportedly prepared for the November 2011 G20 summit attended by Harper a month before Canada's pullout from the Kyoto Protocol. They highlight the World Bank's recommendation for "putting a price on carbon for developed countries," and comment that "Canada could support other countries implementing this proposal."

The PCO records also say that "Canada supports the development of new market-based mechanisms that expand the scale and scope of carbon markets." De Souza adds that the records suggest Canada "wanted to expand markets that require polluters to pay and allow other companies to profit from deploying technologies or other methods to reduce emissions in the atmosphere."

The Environment Canada documents were notes given to Deputy Environment Minister Bob Hamilton after he was appointed in July 2012, briefing him on the potential for job creation and economic growth in a strong climate change strategy.

The notes say that a "well-designed environmental policy, including GHG emission reduction policies, can also support economic objectives, in areas such as innovation, improved energy and resource productivity, and opportunities in global clean technology markets."

The briefing observes that "environmental damage and natural resource degradation can have important economic costs" in addition to posing "serious" and "significant impacts on human health and safety…and ecosystems in Canada and throughout the world."

Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq's spokeswoman told Postmedia News "that the government does not support a carbon tax," reiterated the Harper government's position "that an NDP climate change proposal from the last election to raise billions of dollars by auctioning of pollution permits as part of a market-based carbon pricing scheme — was a tax on gas, groceries, electricity and everything else."

Aglukkaq's office said Canada is "playing a leadership role in addressing climate change."

De Souza writes that despite all major Canadian federal political parties supporting carbon pricing in the 2008 federal elections, "the Conservatives later decided to favour binding regulations in each industrial sector instead, because of the failure of the U.S. Congress to pass legislation creating a carbon market."

Several provinces have implemented their own forms of carbon pricing or taxes on greenhouse gas emissions, such as British Columbia's highly-successful tax on buying or using fuel.

The Environment Canada briefing notes suggested Canada inteded to meet its "GHG emission reduction target of 17% under 2005 levels by 2020," especially with "greater international pressure to demonstrate concrete action and to outline how Canada's national emissions targets will be met." A new report from Environmental Defence shows Canada cannot, however, met its emission reduction targets given current planned expansion in the tar sands – Canada's fastest source of growing GHGs.

Image Credit: Prime Minister's Office / Fickr

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.

Instead of consulting with the Canadian public before cutting millions in green spending at Environment Canada, the Harper government consulted with communications strategists who helped gauge potential public reactions to the budget cuts.

Mike De Souza writes for Postmedia News, that according to "internal briefing documents" released through access to information legislation, the "Harper government included communications strategists in closed-door discussions that led to an estimated $60 million in cuts at Environment Canada in the 2012 federal budget."

"Strategists from the communication branch were involved in Environment Canada's deliberations on its contribution to the deficit action reduction plan from the beginning," said the records, which were labelled "secret advice to the minister." The briefing documents, containing up to 500 pages, were prepared for Environment Canada Deputy Minister Bob Hamilton, after he replaced Paul Boothe in summer 2012.

Hamilton was also warned in a communications strategy that "Media and public alike have been highly critical of the government of Canada, expressing concern over its cuts to science-based activities." The strategy listed "Reassuring Canadians that their health and safety have not been put at risk as a result of recent cuts" and convincing them that the "government of Canada takes the environment portfolio seriously" as among their "communications challenges."  

The released documents explain that bringing the communications branch in on the closed-door discussions preceding the budget cuts "allowed an analysis of communication issues, stakeholder reactions and public perception to be weighed during the consideration of each and every proposal." It also kept communications staff primed and "ready to hit the ground running once the decisions were announced."

In a follow-up piece, De Souza reports Environment Canada spokesman Mark Johnson as confirming that the communications specialists' analysis "consisted of identifying stakeholders who may have an interest in any particular proposal, studying the positions they have taken on related issues, and extrapolating from that, what their reactions might be to the proposal at hand."

Johnson added that the "confidential nature" of the deliberations prevented "actual formal consultation on any particular proposal with stakeholders."

NDP environment critic Megan Leslie told De Souza she was disappointed to see the Harper government's "backwards" method of reaching decisions, saying she feels "their guiding principle in making these decisions is: 'Let's see what we can get away with.'"  

Gary Corbett, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, also found the approach "a bit backwards," saying it's "wrong for communications people to be involved in deciding what decisions to make. Communications people are there to communicate the decisions after they're made. It seems the government is just being political rather than (doing) what's in the best interests of Canadians."

Leslie advised the Harper government to "hire and consult scientists on how to manage the department, not communications experts to give us spin about these ideological cuts."

Environment Canada said that "senior science managers, knowledgeable in the relevant areas, were involved as appropriate in order to provide context."

De Souza observes that the documents didn't elaborate on "what sort of consultations might have taken place with Environment Minister Peter Kent or deliberations with government scientists, who worked in the field, on spending reductions in areas such as federal response capacity to environmental disasters or quality control in enforcing industrial air pollution regulations."

Kent's office responded by saying that they "led in arriving at the final decisions regarding the measures across the department and were therefore, obviously regularly informed and briefed accordingly."

De Souza notes that the records "estimated that Environment Canada's 2015-16 budget would be $949 million, down from a peak of $1.3 billion in 2007-08."

Image Credit: The Prime Minister's Office / 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.

A 2012 government report from scientists at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans warns that Canada’s Atlantic waters are “particularly vulnerable” to ocean acidification from rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Mike De Souza writes for Postmedia News, that “the government report, posted on a website without a formal announcement or news release, noted that the world’s oceans have absorbed a significant amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, with profound effects on marine ecosystems that could damage the Canadian economy.”

The October report, co-authored by Kristian Curran and Kumiko Azetsu-Scott from the department, focuses on what global ocean acidification “may mean for the marine ecology of the Scotian Shelf region of Atlantic Canada.” The Scotian Shelf is in the North Atlantic, which is “a global 'hotspot' for the absorption of carbon dioxide into the surface ocean.”

Unsurprisingly, Curran and Azetsu-Scott’s forecast isn’t too bright. The study notes that the present “concern regarding ocean acidification resides in its unprecedented rate of occurrence, due to the significant amount of carbon dioxide that has been added to the atmosphere over the past 250 years.”

De Souza notes that, according to the report, “marine ecosystems might be able to adapt to changes in their acidity over time periods greater than 10,000 years, but would have difficulty with emerging changes that are equivalent to a 30 per cent increase in acidity since the industrial revolution.”

The report says that further global increase in ocean acidity is “certain to occur over the coming century and longer due to present day atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, even with legislative or policy-driven reductions in carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere.”

Because ocean acidification and “its associated impacts cannot be easily reversed, adaptive measures coupled with a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere will have to be pursued to protect ecosystems and human livelihoods against this phenomenon.”  

Curran and Azetsu-Scott mention that more studies on the effects of ocean acidification on marine life are urgently needed, saying it is uncertain at this point what lasting alterations will be seen in the ecosystem. They emphasize, though, that “any potential impacts could be severe,” and that acidification is likely to be “enough of a driver to alter species composition and dominance in a manner that could profoundly alter marine ecosystem and functioning.”

As De Souza observes, the report also addresses possible socio-economic impacts of changes to the ecosystem of the Scotian Shelf. Shellfish industries in Atlantic Canada “worth hundreds of millions of dollars and responsible for thousands of jobs” could be adversely affected, since the animals they harvest could be “negatively affected” by rising acidity levels.

In a summary, the report states that the “current situation” concerning “use of fossil fuels” and “legislated targets for carbon dioxide emission reductions” in Canada is “poor” when assessed “in terms of implications for the state of the environment.”

“To adapt to the changing environment we have to identify where the most vulnerable area is and try to reduce that added stress like pollution (and/or) overfishing,” Azetsu-Scott told Postmedia News in her first major interview about the report since October 2012.

“But still a lot of work needs to be done for adaptation,” she added, calling ocean acidification and climate change an “urgent and serious problem” for Canada.

De Souza writes that Luke Gaulton, a spokesman for Fisheries and Oceans, confirmed the Canadian government “didn’t issue a news release when it published the report.”

It was instead posted on “the website of a network with representation from government, industry, academia and non-governmental organizations.”

Image Credit: Ocean Acidification: State of the Scotian Shelf Report

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.