In his efforts to advance TransCanada’s bid for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, that will carry 700,000 barrels of oilsands oil from Hardisty, Alberta to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has travelled to Washington six times. During his most recent trip he resorted to “desperate and false arguments” to sell the project according to Robyn Allan, former President and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

In a recent piece for the Vancouver Observer, Allan writes Oliver’s “eagerness” has led him to make misleading claims about the significance of the pipeline to energy security – for both the U.S. and Canada – job security and the environment.

During his November 6th trip Oliver claimed “the approval of Keystone XL would enhance energy security, create thousands of jobs and support the environment. Approval would displace oil from Venezuela which has repeatedly threatened to cut off its supply to the United States and has the same or higher emissions as the oil sands, with less stringent regulations.”

As Allan points out, the Keystone XL would only account for a portion of imported oil to the U.S., accounting for only six percent of U.S. imports.

However, that amount of oil, if upgraded domestically and shipped to the east coast of Canada (which currently imports oil from other countries), could potentially be significant in terms of Canadian energy security.

So, to the claim of U.S. energy security, Minister Oliver is off the mark.

Allan claims that the argument for job security is equally misleading. Even President Obama took issue with claims the pipeline would create thousands of jobs in an interview with the New York Times.

He said, “Republicans have said that this would be a big jobs generator,” but “there is no evidence that that’s true. The most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 job during the construction of the pipeline, which might take a year or two, and then after that we’re talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 jobs in an economy of 150 million working people.”

The export of diluted bitumen from Canada, says Allan only guarantees Canadians will lose out on upgrading and refining jobs.  “Diluted bitumen shipped to the Gulf Coast means upgrading and refining oil sands crude does not take place in Alberta – it takes place in the U.S. So we can be assured Keystone XL actually represents thousands of jobs lost to Canada.”

When it comes to environment, Minister Oliver bases his reasoning that Keystone XL will “support the environment” on the claim that Venezuelan oil has the same or higher emissions as the oil sands but without a strong set of regulations to guide production.

Allan breaks down the claim this way: for the pipeline to actually benefit the environment, oilsands oil emissions would have to be lower than Venezuelan oil emissions, be capable of displacing Venezuelan oil, and Venezuelan oil not imported would need to remain unexploited.

To clarify on the first point, Allan reached out to Minister Oliver’s office but could not get a response.

Allan would be right in assuming that oilsands represent Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions and that Alberta, due to industry, accounts for 49 per cent of Canada’s total emissions.

Without a strict basis for comparison, however, Allan takes an extremely favourable position – that Venezuelan crude has higher emissions than Albertan oil. But that assumption only propels Allan to ask the next question. Could oilsands bitumen displace Venezuelan crude in the U.S. market?

As Allan explains, this is extremely unlikely. Venezuelan oil is produced by a state-owned company Petróleos de Venezuela South America (PDVSA). PDVSA owns and controls three “captive” refineries in the U.S. which are supplied with a guaranteed feed of Venezuelan oil. Even if Canada could displace the Venezuelan crude supplying these Venezuelan-owned refineries, Venezuela would need to agree to halt production of an equal amount of oil from its reserves to allow for the ‘displacement’ of that oil.

This would amount to the shutting down of 40 percent of Venezuela’s resource sector.

Allan writes, “Mr. Oliver’s claim that Keystone XL would enhance energy security, create thousands of jobs and support the environment is wrong. For many of us concerned about adding value to our non-renewable resources, meaningful and long term jobs for Canadians, global warming and climate change, his brazen misrepresentations are insulting.”

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 has failed to fulfill its legal duty to consult First Nations in Ontario and Quebec about Enbridge’s Line 9 project that would see oilsands bitumen shipped through a 37-year old oil pipeline.

“This is not an issue of inadequate or improper consultation with First Nations. No consultation by the federal government has taken place whatsoever,” says Scott Smith, the lawyer who represented Aamjiwnaang and Deshkon Ziibi* (Chippewas of the Thames) – two Anishinaabe* First Nations of southwestern Ontario – during the Line 9 hearings. The hearings concluded on October 25th.

Failing to consult with the fourteen Anishinaabe (Ojibwe), Haudenosaunee* (Iroquois), and Lenape (Delaware)* First Nations communities living along or near the Line 9 pipeline could land the federal government and the Line 9 project in court.

“Transporting dilbit (diluted bitumen) through Line 9 is going to have a big impact on us, our drinking water and our traditional practices. It will increase the risk of a rupture,” Myeengun Henry, a band councilor from Deshkon Ziibi told DeSmog Canada.

An international pipeline safety expert revealed to DeSmog Canada in an interview in October that if Line 9 is approved to ship bitumen (technically “dilbit” when transported through pipelines) the probability of the pipeline rupturing is “over 90%.” Line 9 has never transported heavy crudes such as bitumen before.

The ‘honour of the Crown’ Demands the Federal Government Must Consult

When the federal government is contemplating a decision that has the potential to adversely impact indigenous peoples in Canada (First Nations, Inuit, Métis) the government is legally required to consult with the affected indigenous parties to ensure their best interests are met and their rights protected.

This ‘duty-to-consult’ flows from a legal concept called the ‘honour of the Crown.’ The federal government is required to act “honourably” or in the best interests of indigenous peoples in regards to their rights. The legal precedent for the duty to consult comes from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Haida First Nation v. British Columbia in 2004:

“The honour of the Crown requires that these (indigenous) rights be determined, recognized and respected. This, in turn, requires the Crown, acting honourably, to participate in processes of negotiation. While this process continues, the honour of the Crown may require it to consult and, where indicated, accommodate Aboriginal interests.”

“Failing to consult with First Nations about Line 9 is a slap in the face to Canada’s own law,” says Henry from Deshkon Ziibi. Deshkon Ziibi is near London, Ontario.

Aamjiwnaang and Deshkon Ziibi also sent a joint letter to the Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver and Minister of Aboriginal Affairs Bernard Valcourt dated September 27th inviting the federal government to initiate consultations with them on Line 9. They have yet to receive a reply.

Proposal to Ship Bitumen ‘Triggered’ the Duty-to-Consult

Scott Smith, the lawyer acting on behalf of Aamjiwnaang and Deshkon Ziibi argued during the Line 9 hearings the federal government cannot avoid consultations with his clients simply because Line 9 is an existing pipeline:

“Enbridge’s proposal to fundamentally repurpose Line 9 to make it commercially viable again has the potential to cause new and additional impacts on the Rights (of Aamjiwnaang and Deshkon Ziibi),” stated Smith in an oral submission.

The Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, and Lenape have recognized rights under Section 35 of the Canadian constitution to hunt, fish and harvest on their traditional lands. A ‘dilbit disaster’ on the scale of the Kalamazoo spill in Michigan or the Mayflower spill in Arkansas would severely impede their ability to practice these rights.

Free, Prior, and Informed Consent is the New Standard for Indigenous Peoples

“The duty to consult and accommodate is the minimum standard here,” says a letter about Line 9 from the Chiefs of Ontario sent to the National Energy Board (NEB) on August 6th. The NEB oversees the approval or denial of proposed pipeline projects such as Line 9.

“First Nations now assert a right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent in the case of proposed projects that are likely to affect their rights,” the letter explains. The Chiefs of Ontario is an organization representing 133 First Nations in the province.

The concept of ‘free prior and informed consent’ or FPIC is found in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. FPIC goes a step further than the duty to consult by requiring national governments “to obtain (indigenous peoples’) free, prior and informed consent” before making a decision that may affect indigenous peoples.

“There has been no attempt to conform to the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) standard of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Our position is that rubber stamping of the Enbridge proposal will harm the environment and will violate First Nations rights,” concluded the Chiefs of Ontario.

The Canadian government rather reluctantly signed on to the declaration in 2010. The declaration is not legally binding and the Canadian government has been accused of interpreting “consent” as consultation.

Enbridge proposes to reverse Line 9 to flow west-to-east, increase the capacity of the pipeline from 240,000 to 300,000 and transport heavy crudes such as oilsands bitumen through the pipeline.

Critics of the Line 9 project say the pipeline should not be approved to ship bitumen because of the likelihood of a rupture and the adverse impacts further expansion of the tar sands will have on climate change and the people and environment of northern Alberta.  

The NEB – Canada’s independent energy regulator – will most likely make their recommendation on Line 9 in January 2014. The federal government can override any decision made by the NEB.

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

Image Credit: Environmental Defence, Enbridge

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

A recent memo to Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver warned that “global climate change initiatives” might drastically lower the economic benefits of oil sands investments.

The four-page internal memo from Deputy Minister Serge P. Dupont outlined a study by non-profit research organization The Conference Board of Canada that made predictions about the economic impact of oil sands investments for different regions. The memo questions the long term viability of the tar sands, given the increasingly urgent need to address climate change – a concern also brought up by the International Energy Agency last fall.

The Conference Board study, entitled “Chains that Bind: The Economic Benefits of Oil Sands Investment for Canada’s Regions” (the title has since changed to the less ominous-sounding “Fuel for Thought”), assumes a continuation of current market conditions, meaning the level of demand and investment will continue to rise at current rates.

However, it points out that there are certain “risks” to the industry that would profoundly affect the accuracy of its predictions. “Forecasting which oil sands projects will proceed, when they will proceed, and what they will cost is an exercise fraught with risk,” it admits.

In a lengthy section on the environmental impact of the oil and gas sector, it points out that although the increased greenhouse gas emissions have been somewhat mitigated by rising efficiencies in the oil and gas industry, GHG emissions will continue to rise.

“The Conference Board of Canada estimates that emissions for the oil and gas extraction industry will reach 156.2 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2 eq) in 2035, up from 106.4 Mt CO2 eq in 2010,” it says.

“All levels of government and industry are very aware that they must address the environmental challenges of the oil sands. Indeed, growth will depend on this.”

The study then references a 2010 World Energy Outlook from the International Energy Agency, which takes into account different scenarios of government intervention to prevent climate change. Like the Conference Board report, the IEA concludes that growth in the oil and gas industry will continue “unless governments intervene to change it, through measures that lead to a shift in behaviour and/or in the way in which energy needs are met.”

The report’s lead author Michael Burt, the director of the industrial economic trends group at the Conference Board, told Postmedia that the report “isn’t suggesting that the oilsands industry would be harmed in a world that is addressing global warming.”

De Souza notes the report concludes "a combination of emerging global policies, including pricing schemes or taxes on pollution, an elimination of public subsidies for fossil fuels and new support for clean technology, would all factor in to projections for the oilsands industry."

However, it appears the most important section of the report is being ignored by both government and media. That is, the crucial question of whether development in the tar sands can continue while international governments and organizations work to prevent more than two degrees of warming. 

On his facebook page, De Souza wrote "the lead author on the Conference Board report told me that other media didn't really ask him questions about the climate change risks highlighted in his report."

Minister Oliver prefers to focus on the growth of profit from the tar sands, rather than the dyer warnings of their environment impact.

De Souza reports that, “Oliver told Postmedia News in an email that the memo highlights the critical importance of diversifying Canada’s markets to promote growth. He also said the International Energy Agency projects that, even under the most stringent climate change scenario, 63 per cent of global energy needs will still be met by fossil fuels in 25 years and require ‘every drop’ of growing production from Canada’s oilsands.”

Dupont’s memo to Oliver focuses on the usefulness of the report in terms of talking points about jobs, the Harper government's current favourite topic. It doesn't explicitly suggest policy, but it does offer a glimpse into the tenor of the discussion amongst policy makers. It shows a discourse that counts environmental risk only in terms of its impact on economic growth.

Since coming to office, the Harper government has developed an international reputation for stepping out of the fight against climate change. In 2011 Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, the United Nations convention to combat climate change. At the end of March, they quietly pulled out of the UN Treaty to Combat Desertification.

Image Credit: Rocco Rossi via Wikimedia.org

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 most urgent environmental threat to Canadians isn’t climate change, the declining health of our oceans, or the extinction of species. It’s the pollution filling our nation’s public square.

The public square – the forum for free debate that we depend on in a democracy – is being choked by misinformation, denial and bitter adversarial rhetoric. It is causing the Canadian public to turn away in despair, creating an epidemic of mistrust and what’s worse, disinterest.

Instead of open and healthy debate, dysfunctional public conversations have become the norm, preventing us from confronting the reality of our destructive impact on the planet. We seem unable or unwilling to weigh facts honestly, disagree constructively and deliberate collectively.

DeSmog Canada will wade through the PR pollution that is preventing us from having sensible public conversations about critical issues around the environment, social justice and the economy.

Here, we will work to clear the air and explore solutions for cleaning up Canada's polluted public square. We will examine why Canadians often feel powerless to demand that government and industry focus on what’s really important: developing more effective public policies and transitioning to a healthier, more sustainable economy.

To begin, we need to call out some of the biggest polluters of the public square. These are the harmful PR strategies employed by government and industry aimed to dissuade the public from discussing legitimate concerns.

One of the most blatant examples is the “Ethical Oil” campaign being used by the oil and gas industry to justify unfettered expansion of Alberta’s oil sands. It’s a deceptive campaign that intentionally aims to subvert public awareness and confuse debate by blurring the issues.

Consider the phrase Ethical Oil – a presumptuous and oversimplified pairing of words that leaves little room for the many ethical questions and concerns of Canadians. The Ethical Oil Institute goes so far as to call its cause the “fair trade choice in oil”. The suggestion is that Canadians and the developing world need to support production in the oil sands to squeeze out the markets of “politically oppressive and environmentally reckless regimes” in places such as the Middle East. Unfortunately, not everyone recognizes this type of deceptive messaging, or the damage it can cause.

It is a nasty PR tactic designed not to persuade, but to distract the public through misdirection and misinformation. In fact, Ethical Oil’s strategy is more cynical than most. It mislabels itself to deliberately confuse people about their interests. Ethical Oil then demonizes its opponents to create a culture of mistrust. Citizens become so confused by the cacophony of conflicting information and rhetoric that their reaction is to simply tune out.

In the past, this style of propaganda has been resorted to by industries desperate to escape accountability for their irresponsible business practices. Recall the tobacco industry’s extensive campaign to cast doubt on the health threats of its products, or the oxymoron that is the American coal industry’s “clean coal” marketing campaign. Instead of making claims with substance, the goal of this type of PR spin is to polarize public opinion and discourage critical thinking.

Similar tactics have been used by the Harper Government to stifle debate around the expansion of the oil sands and risky projects such as the Northern Gateway Pipeline. Consider Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver’s now infamous statement about “environmental and other radical groups” that questioned the social and environmental impact of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. Environment Minister Peter Kent even suggested charitable groups in Canada are “laundering” foreign funds, yet admitted later he had no evidence to back up his accusations.

The government continues to suggest that Canadian groups that speak out against the environmental impacts of resource development are trying to undermine Canada’s sovereignty and economic growth. Again, it’s an attempt to force the public to take sides on an issue where there is no black and white.

If all of this sounds melodramatic, that’s the point. Canadians who hear elected officials talking about money laundering and environmental radicals are likely to treat the information as yet another form of entertainment, then promptly ignore it. This serves to silence Canadians who already mistrust business and government, believing the system is rigged and that there is little they can do to make a difference. This attitude fuels public apathy, playing into the PR strategy to drown out dissent and smother public discourse.

Our goal is to put an end to this practice by exposing it for what it really is: a PR bullying campaign. At the same time, we want to encourage and build the kind of healthy public discourse that is needed to foster a true democracy. After all, democracy is dependent on a citizenry that is engaged and capable of sorting some approximate version of the truth amidst a sea of opinion in the public square.

We invite you to be part of this conversation. Share your thoughts here and feel free to share this and other DeSmog Canada content on social media and other channels. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Together, we can clean up the public square and encourage all citizens to pursue their right to take part in decision-making processes that will have a lasting impact on their health, community and the economy for decades to come.

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.