Since the Liberals formed government last November, Enbridge and Northern Gateway Pipeline have lobbied Ottawa an astounding 86 times, federal lobbying reports reveal.

Fifty-one of those meetings have taken place since August — which, funnily enough, is around the same time Prime Minister Justin Trudeau started backtracking on his commitment to ban oil tankers on B.C.’s north coast, a policy that would leave Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline proposal dead in the water.

Since October last year, representatives from Enbridge and Northern Gateway Pipeline met with representatives from the Prime Minister’s Office eight times, Transport Canada 10 times, Fisheries and Oceans Canada 10 times, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada 12 times, Natural Resources Canada 31 times, and mostly Liberal Members of Parliament 39 times to name just a few.

During this time Enbridge and Northern Gateway Pipeline lobbyists met with more than 130 top-level chiefs of staff, policy directors, and ministers, records show.

Diesel Spill Off B.C. Coast Creating New Urgency Around Promised Tanker Ban

The issue of oil transport along the B.C. coast has been thrust back into the spotlight in the wake of ongoing diesel spill recovery efforts near Bella Bella.

Coastal residents were in a state of disbelief last night after learning an emergency response vessel, sent to B.C.’s central coast to retrieve the diesel-leaking Nathan E. Stewart, sank beside the sunken tug in windswept waters.

Since October 13, cleanup of the diesel spill in the traditional waters of the Heiltsuk First Nation has been slow and unsuccessful, hampered by a lack of response equipment, relief crews and favourable weather.

This has heightened criticism of the federal government and Trudeau who made a clear commitment to enact an oil tanker ban for the north B.C. coast during his election campaign last year. Trudeau even included formalizing the tanker ban on the list of ‘top priorities’ in Transport Minister Marc Garneau’s mandate letter in early November last year.

When pressed on his promise to ban tanker traffic — a proposal some say is not nearly comprehensive enough to protect the coast from vessels like the Nathan E. Stewart —Trudeau awkwardly dodged the question.

“Over the past year there’s been a lot of underinvestment by the federal government in marine safety and spill response. That’s something we’re absolutely committed to turning around,” Trudeau told Breakfast Television.

“And one of the symbols of that — as someone who knows Vancouver and the Lower Mainland as well as I do — one of the first things we did was reopen the Kits coast guard base because we understand that having responders there if something happens is absolutely essential.”

Jess Housty, tribal councillor for the Heiltsuk, took to Twitter to express her dismay with the Prime Minister’s comments.

“Saw your interview today,” Housty tweeted. “You know Kits is ~650km away from Bella Bella and Seaforth Channel, right?”

Nathan Cullen, MP for the Skeena-Bulkley Valley region in B.C. and environment critic for the NDP, said it is incredibly frustrating for coastal people to have the federal government stall on the tanker ban.

“When we are talking about protecting the coast out here, for the people who live here, that’s life and death,” Cullen told DeSmog Canada.

“The insult is twice because the promise was twofold: one, to bring in a tanker ban. It’s been a year and we’re still waiting. Two, to establish respectful relations with First Nations.”

“This is literally killing two birds with one stone,” Cullen said.

He added Trudeau’s inability to follow through on his promises is indication of a dangerous duplicity.

“We are a year in and one has to wonder if there are two Justin Trudeaus. One that campaigns and does public events and Twitter. The other that meets in the private backrooms in Ottawa with more oil lobbyists — one would imagine by a factor of 10 — than he has with environmental and First Nation leaders.”

Cullen said it isn’t just the diesel spill near Bella Bella that British Columbians have to worry about, but the pending decision on the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline.

“You wonder if the West Coast is being thrown under the bus for nothing other than political calculation.”

John Horgan, leader of the B.C.NDP, said the response to what is unfolding in Bella Bella at both the federal and the provincial level has been “frustrating” and “astounding.”

“It does really speak to an Ottawa-based arrogance to believe that reigniting the much-needed Coast Guard base in Vancouver is somehow a benefit to the coast north of Vancouver Island all the way to Prince Rupert,” Horgan told DeSmog Canada.

When asked about Enbridge and Northern Gateway’s recent lobbying spree, Horgan said “the government should spend more time with the people of B.C. when considering these problems and less with those lobbying government offices.”

Lobbying Records Disclose the Bare Minimum: Watchdog

These high volumes of lobbying are troubling, according to Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, a government accountability watchdog.

“Everybody should be worried about the power of large corporations in terms of lobbying governments,” Conacher told DeSmog Canada.

“They not only have economic power in terms of threatening to sue under trade deals or to take their business elsewhere…but they also usually hire people who have connections to the ruling party to do their lobbying so they have undue and unethical political power as well.”

Conacher said Enbridge and Northern Gateway could be doing a lot more lobbying of the federal government without any disclosure due to vast amounts of lobbying loopholes.

The documented lobbying by Enbridge and Northern Gateway is likely just scratching the surface, he said.

“Only oral pre-arranged meetings are required to be documented in those monthly logs. So you shouldn’t think that’s all the lobbying: that’s just the lobbying they disclosed.”

– With files from James Wilt

Enbridge Northern Gateway Lobbying Aug 2015-Oct 2016 – Sheet1 by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Image: Justin Trudeau 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.

“First Nations save us again.”

That was the message of a text I received from a friend after they heard of the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision to overturn the Harper government’s approval of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.

And it’s true: First Nations have borne the social burden once again of calling out undemocratic, law-breaking government actions that threaten the climate, the environment and human health.

Alongside the many First Nations that brought a legal challenge against the Northern Gateway pipeline approval were several environmental organizations that brought attention to the ways the project threatened endangered species and marine life.

But it was the former government’s tragic lack of First Nations consultation that caught the court’s attention.

In their ruling, two of the three judges said the government failed to meet even a basic standard for First Nations consultation. In fact, the government all but closed their eyes and stopped up their ears to some of the most basic aspects of First Nations existence.

From the ruling: “The inadequacies — more than just a handful and more than mere imperfections — left entire subjects of central interest to the affected First Nations, sometimes subjects affecting their subsistence and well-being, entirely ignored.”

“Many impacts of the project — some identified in the Report of the Joint Review Panel, some not — were left undisclosed, undiscussed and unconsidered.”

“Ignored.” “Undiscussed and unconsidered.”

It’s extraordinary that some of the most disenfranchised participants in this system were left to fight a major energy infrastructure project — and the undemocratic process that granted its approval — in the courts.

In fact, the mere existence of First Nations people in British Columbia is extraordinary.

That these unique traditional cultures and ways of life have survived the onslaught of Western, industrial, imperial and racist governments and policies in this province is extraordinary.

That they have done so mostly outside a treaty framework, and upon almost entirely unceeded territories, is extraordinary.

That these communities, these individuals, have preserved a cherished, land-based way of life that seems in part the antidote to the poisonous, destructive and extractive impulse of modernity — all while fighting precedent-setting court cases to maintain their right to that life — is extraordinary.

And let’s not forget: the very way First Nations rights and title is enshrined within our constitution is extraordinary.

And the fact that today, in the face of a government that has systematically neglected, silenced and oppressed them, these First Nations have secured a legal victory that will likely benefit us all, is extraordinary.

Legal commentators are already pointing to how this ruling exposes the fundamental inadequacy of our pipeline review process. That is the very same process currently in place for the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline — another project local First Nations have been forced to fight in court.

The same failures and inadequacies of consultation have also plague this province’s approval of fracking operations, industrial water use, species at risk management, environmental assessments and the oversight of a nascent LNG export empire.

Treaty 8 First Nations in the Peace Region have also been forced to take the province to court over violations of treaty rights in the face of the destructive Site C dam. There are more violations occurring there than local First Nations have the time or capacity to legally challenge.

Legal battles like the one won for B.C. First Nations today are costly. They drain First Nations of the energies and resources that would otherwise be invested in their communities.

The decision for the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline now rests in the hands of the federal government and Prime Minister Trudeau, who recently signed Canada onto the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Let’s hope, moving forward, First Nations consultation as well as all constitutional and treaty rights, will be made part of this government’s decision-making process rather than a shameful afterthought.

Heaven knows it will benefit us all.

Image: Pipeline opponents rally against the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline in Vancouver. Photo: 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.

When former environment minister Jim Prentice held his introductory lunch with U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson in November 2009, Prentice described to Jacobson how he had been shocked during a visit to Norway to find heated opposition to the Alberta oilsands during a public debate over state-owned StatOil ASA’s investment there.

This information was contained in a cable from Jacobson, which was obtained by WikiLeaks and posted by a Norwegian paper.

Prentice was clearly feeling the heat from a global campaign by environmental organizations to frame oilsands oil as “dirty” because of its energy-intensive extraction, which make for Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

“The public sentiment in Norway shocked him and has heightened his awareness of the negative consequences to Canada’s historically ‘green’ standing on the world stage,” the cable reported.

An Oilsands PR Makeover[view:in_this_series=block_1]

Given the dismal reputation of the oilsands, the government had three options: (a) clean them up by bringing in environmental legislation; (b) discredit the people creating the negative image; or (c) set up front groups to promote the industry, however dirty it may be.

In his discussion with Jacobson, Prentice suggested he would do (a): “impose new rules on oil sands.” But he never did. The federal government — which has promised to deliver oil and gas regulations since 2007 — offered no help.

Instead Prentice, along with the government of Alberta, got to work changing the oilsands’ image. The campaign began behind-the-scenes with intensive international lobbying focused on fighting the European Union’s proposed ‘dirty’ label for Albertan crude.

While those backroom meetings were taking place, another public strategy was being deployed to revive the image of the oilsands: demean those exposing the environmental disaster unfolding in Northern Alberta.

Shoot the messenger and undermine the message.

A Brief Chronology of the Anti-Enviro Movement  

Enter Vivian Krause.

When Jacobson wrote his cable, Vivian Krause — a former PR specialist for the aquaculture industry — was beavering away in relative obscurity investigating critics of farmed salmon.

Krause had previously worked as a nutritionist for the aquaculture industry, which routinely recruits nutritionists to tout the benefits of all salmon, farmed or wild.

She began attacking critics of aquaculture when she “unexpectedly came across a grant for an ‘antifarming campaign’ with ‘science messages’ and ‘earned media.’”

Within a year of the Prentice-Jacobson lunch, Krause switched to researching the funding of oilsands critics. She says the switch occurred “while going through the tax returns of American charitable foundations to try and figure out who was funding the campaign against salmon farming [when she] happened to notice many grants for a ‘Tar Sands campaign.’”

“That’s when I started to write about the campaign against Alberta oil,” Krause wrote on her blog, Fair Questions.

These claims may be true — “unexpectedly came across,” “happened to notice” — but the timing was fortuitous. It was a message Prentice and his replacements as environment minister, John Baird and Peter Kent, as well as the Harper government and the oilsands industry, all desperately needed, especially as opposition to Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline — a major thoroughfare for oilsands crude destined for Asian markets — was growing to unprecedented levels.

Krause was given a podium for her revelations in the pages of the National Post, where she wrote eighteen columns on the subject, magnifying her voice many times over. The Post featured her as “the girl who played with tax data.”

Repetition over the following year established the frame that because Canadian environmental charities are funded by American money, they are not acting in the interests of Canadians or the environment, but for American oil. The message dissolves on close examination, but few outside the environmental community were examining it closely.

Other, Fairer Questions

Some of the questions not being asked were just how Canadian is Enbridge, or the other proponents of the Northern Gateway pipeline? Or, more broadly, just how Canadian are the oilsands?

Enbridge is one of the largest energy transportation and distribution companies in North America. Its head office may be in Calgary, but its operations span the continent — 61 per cent of revenues are earned from American operations. Forty-four per cent of Enbridge’s shares are owned in the U.S.

Three major Chinese corporations, Petro-China, Sinopec and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, are all backers of the Northern Gateway pipeline and, since the project’s delay, have all become major investors in the oilsands.

A 2012 analysis calculated that 71 per cent of oilsands production was owned by foreign shareholders. Even ostensibly Canadian companies — such as Suncor or Canadian Oil Sands — are majority foreign owned.

The Canadian-versus-American oil interest frame just doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny.

Krause’s research was not difficult to carry out. Many Canadian environmental organizations have obtained charitable status so they can receive grants from philanthropic foundations. These foundations must disclose all the grants they make and this information is assembled in easily accessed web sites where it can be inspected.

Krause herself is not a registered charitable organization so she cannot receive grants from foundations — grants that would be publicly accessible. The money she does receive from corporations and individuals can stay anonymous.

A year after Krause launched her National Post commentaries, she burst onto the political scene. In November 2011, Prime Minister Harper gave an interview with Global TV in Vancouver in which he parroted Krause’s frame, warning that “significant American interests” would be “trying to line up against the Northern Gateway project” which would allow oil companies to export oilsands oil to Asia.

“They’ll funnel money through environmental groups and others in order to try to slow it down but, as I say, we’ll make sure that the best interests of Canada are protected.”

Later in the month, Jim Prentice, by then a vice-chairman at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, echoed this sentiment by telling the National Post that he thought “environmental organizations based outside the country [should] be required to reveal who gives them funding when they participate in Canada’s regulatory process to influence [Canada’s] internal decisions.”

In December, Enbridge president Patrick Daniel joined Harper and Prentice by wondering out loud why “U.S. foundations feel they need to come here to fund opposition to a project that is obviously not in the U.S. national best interest.”

And in the second week of January 2012, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver released his infamous letter warning of “environmental and other radical groups” seeking to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda,” referring to the many groups lining up to speak against the Northern Gateway project at the National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel hearings.

Oliver’s letter was followed by a slew of ads attacking Canadian environmental organizations mounted by Ethical Oil, the oil industry advocacy group established by conservative gadfly Ezra Levant and Conservative party apparatchik Alykhan Velshi. Ethical Oil acknowledged Krause’s research as a source of information used in their ads as well as the inspiration for several complaint letters submitted to the Canada Revenue Agency questioning the charitable tax status of prominent environmental organizations. Following those complaints, the federal government launched a $13.4 million investigation into charities receiving foreign funding.

On the top of her resume, Krause credits herself for prompting the revenue agency’s audit of charities, which included seven of Canada’s top environmental groups. And a recent investigation by the National Observer argues Krause was given a leg-up by disgraced Senator Mike Duffy, who appears to have played a critical role in advancing Krause’s research in the political arena and connecting her to lucrative sources of industry funding (Krause maintains this is untrue).

Not bad for someone who just “happened to notice many grants for a Tar Sands Campaign.”

Krause insists her work is not funded: “I haven’t been funded by any industry, any company, any political party, any entity of any kind.” She does disclose honoraria she received for speaking to organizations such as the Association of Mineral Exploration in BC, Canadian Energy Pipelines Association and Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Same goes for 2013 & 2014 (so far) "@Garossino: @FairQuestions conceded >90% of her 2012 income comes from resource sector speaking fees."

— Vivian Krause (@FairQuestions) April 27, 2014

Yes. “@Garossino: Are you saying speaking fees to industry also exceeds 90% of your 2013 + '14 income to date? Details?”

— Vivian Krause (@FairQuestions) April 27, 2014

Krause officially closed down her blog, Fair Questions, in June 2012 and wrote what seems to be her last National Post column in 2014. Krause continues to speak at industry-sponsored events.

The Snowball Effect

With Krause’s rise to prominance the work to discredit Canada’s environmental movement was far from over. Since her humble beginnings in 2011, several other organizations stepped in to carry on the “foreign-funded” attack on environmental groups.

One website named “Our Decision” went online the same week Joe Oliver came gunning after “radical” environmentalists who were trying to stop the Northern Gateway pipeline. The site provides no information about the people behind it although donations go to the Ethical Oil Institute, whose directors are Levant and Thomas Ross, an employer-side labour lawyer whose Calgary firm, McLennan Ross, boasts of a relationship with the oilsands industry that goes back to its origins in the 1960s.

The purpose of “Our Decision” is to collect donations to be marshalled in the war against environmentalists: “Will you help us fight against foreign-funded and controlled lobbyists interfering in Canadian affairs?”

“Follow the Money Trail” is a second web site that promotes the Krause conspiracy theory. The site went online in mid-2014 and is sponsored by British Columbians for Prosperity, a new organization which, like Ethical Oil, provides no information about its financial backers, directors, members or advisers. The site helps us to “follow the money trail and explore the U.S. foundation funding hypocrisy that’s impacting Canada’s sovereignty.”

The organization hired one journalist to do the research and another to disseminate the findings. The findings, such as they are, had already been found by Krause.

And on it goes. Repeat this message: American billionaires back Canadian environmental organizations opposed to oilsands expansion and pipeline construction, not because oilsands developments threaten the environment or add to global warming, but because they are detrimental to American oil interests.

A perfect bait-and-switch strategy.

Meanwhile, little light has being shed on the funding of citizen groups defending oil production and export.

Unlike environmental groups, whose spokespeople have a clear public profile and whose organizations have long-standing missions, publicly-known board members and financial records, the same cannot be said of pop-up defenders of oil interests such as the Ethical Oil Institute and British Columbians for Prosperity.

Their activities remain shrouded in secrecy.

Image Credit: Vivian Krause speaks at She Talks Resources. Photo by Mychaylo Prystupa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ellis Ross. Photo: Philip Chin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environment Canada Sep 1 2009 Email Re Consultation Approach

Transport Canada Aug 31 2009 Email Re Consultation Approach

Image Credit: Ellis Ross by Philip Chin

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

Alberta Oil Magazine just published its National Survey on Energy Literacy, the culmination of 1,396 online interviews of a representative sample of Canadians conducted by Leger.

The results are particularly interesting coming from Alberta Oil, a magazine destined for the desks of the energy sector’s senior executives and decision-makers.

Summing up the survey’s findings about “The Issues,” Alberta Oil editors write that opposition to energy projects is “not just for West Coast hippies anymore.”

Indeed. There are quite a few nuggets in the survey’s findings that are probably causing a headache or two in Calgary’s corner offices this week. We round up the Top 5.

1) Opposition to the proposed Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline is just as serious as opposition to Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline — if not more so, according to the survey. What’s more, the more highly educated citizens are, the less likely they are to support Trans Mountain or Northern Gateway. Hmph, maybe the anti-pipeline crowd isn’t all unemployed hippies after all?

2) Fewer than one-in-ten post-secondary graduates find oil and gas industry associations credible and trustworthy when it comes to carbon emissions. That shouldn’t come as a huge surprise given that industry associations like the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers have fought new greenhouse gas regulations and successfully lobbied to weaken Canada’s environmental laws.

3) Young people aren’t super stoked on the future of the energy industry. Just 16.5 per cent of people 18-34 described it as “essential,” compared to 30.3 per cent overall. What’s more, only 9.3 per cent of respondents aged 18-34 described the oilsands as “essential” compared to 18 per cent for the broader population.

4) While British Columbia has thus far been the focal point of Canada’s pipeline debate, the strongest opposition to the oil and gas sector is actually in Quebec. That’s going to have big ramifications for the proposed Energy East pipeline that would theoretically transport bitumen across that province. When asked to think of the oil and gas sector in Canada and select words that come to mind, 51 per cent of Quebecers came up with “environmental disaster.” Time for Trans Canada's PR people to pop an Advil. (Since Edelman isn't doing their dirty work for them any more …)

Screencap of Alberta Oil Magazine's National Survey on Energy Literacy.

5) The editors at Alberta Oil do some hand-wringing about Canadians' lack of “energy literacy” … although energy literacy in this case appears to be defined as the ability to answer some pretty obscure pro-industry questions.

Take the multiple choice question on how much more carbon intensive the oil produced from Alberta’s oilsands is than the average grade of U.S. crude on a well-to-wheels basis. Only 5.6 per cent of respondents chose correctly.

Ummm hold on, hasn’t there been a raging debate going on for the past few years on oilsands’ emissions intensity?

While Alberta Oil would like you to think the “correct” answer to that question is six per cent, a comparison of oilsands emissions intensities (well-to-wheels) from seven data sources to the 2005 U.S. baseline showed that oilsands emissions range from eight to 37 per cent higher than the baseline. Really, the best answer would probably be that there's a huge amount of variation and disagreement on oilsands emissions intensity.

In good news, very few Canadians can spew out the precise answers industry wants to hear to their technical questions. Oil execs probably aren’t loving that their multi-million dollar advertising campaigns appear to be falling on deaf ears.

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 is a guest post by Ian Miron, Ecojustice staff lawyer. 

Proposed pipeline liability regime steps in the right direction, but leaves too much wiggle room for polluters.

At this very moment, Canada’s liability regime is woefully inadequate when it comes to making sure that polluters pay in the event of a pipeline rupture or oil spill. That means that Canadian taxpayers like you would shoulder an inappropriate degree of the risk in the event of a serious pipeline accident, like Enbridge’s Kalamazoo River spill in Michigan.

According to recent estimates, that spill — the largest in United States history — cost more than $1.2 billion to clean-up. By comparison, Canada’s strictest liability law would have only made Enbridge automatically liable for a paltry $40 million, while providing the company with an opportunity to wriggle off the hook for any further costs. 

Now consider that a number of controversial new pipeline projects have been proposed in Canada, each bigger than the last. Between Enbridge’s Northern Gateway (525,000 barrels per day), Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion (890,000 barrels per day) and TransCanada’s Energy East (1.1 million barrels per day), thousands of Canadians may find pipeline infrastructure — locking us into a fossil-fuel economy for another generation — snaking right through their backyards.

Each project comes with an array of heavy environmental risks, including significant upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions. But for many Canadians, the very real threat of a major oil spill is a tangible and pressing concern, which is why it is absolutely imperative that Canada bring in a stricter, more comprehensive liability regime.

The good news is there is some progress to report. Earlier this month, the federal government introduced Bill C-46 in the House of Commons. If passed into law, Bill C-46 would completely overhaul the statutory liability regime for federally-regulated pipelines in Canada.

Here’s a quick look at a few encouraging developments and shortcomings of the bill:

The Good

     Polluters will be absolutely liable for harm caused by a pipeline spill.

• This means that the company operating a pipeline will be liable in the event of a spill even if it hasn’t been negligent and hasn’t broken any laws. Bill C-46 will also require a company to have enough financial resources to cover, in full, the absolute liability limit. That limit will be $1 billion for oil pipeline companies whose pipelines have the capacity to move at least 250,000 barrels per day. The limit for gas and other pipeline companies (as well as smaller oil pipeline companies) may be set out in a future regulation. It is also worth noting that Cabinet has the power to increase, but not to decrease the absolute liability limit for major oil pipeline companies.

  Polluters will be liable for environmental damages.  

• The bill makes polluters responsible for losses of “non-use value” of public resources, or environmental damages, even if those damages don’t affect the environment’s commercial (or “use”) value. Recognition of so-called “environmental damages” is rare in Canadian statutes, although it is well-developed in U.S. oil spill legislation. Polluters will also be liable for any actual losses or damages suffered by individuals and for any clean-up costs incurred by the government.

  New tools to recoup clean-up costs from polluters.  

• Bill C-46 creates several new tools that, if implemented, will enhance the National Energy Board’s ability to recoup clean-up costs from a polluter, including some that appear to allow the Board to recover more than the absolute liability limit. The bill also gives the Board the power, in certain circumstances, to recover costs associated with a spill from the pipeline industry at large, not just from the polluter. Cabinet will also have the ability to establish a special tribunal to hear and decide claims for compensation. Interestingly, any compensation awarded by the tribunal would be paid directly out of government revenue. This should make it easier for those affected by a spill to obtain compensation, but could leave taxpayers on the hook for this compensation if other tools aren’t used to recover money from the polluter.  

The Bad

     It’s too discretionary.

• Many of the new tools are discretionary, meaning that either the National Energy Board or politicians (i.e., Cabinet) get to decide whether or not they will be implemented. It is conceivable that some tools might not be implemented for political or other reasons, weakening the protection and peace of mind this bill is intended to offer Canadians. While Bill C-46 has the potential to make some important improvements to Canada’s pipeline liability regime, it’s too early to tell whether this potential will translate to real, on-the-ground benefits for Canadian taxpayers.

  It has significant gaps.  

• For example, Bill C-46 doesn’t identify the absolute liability limit for gas and other non-oil pipeline companies, or for small oil pipeline companies. Instead, this limit might be set in the future by a Cabinet regulation. Likewise, Bill C-46 provides no clear guidance on the calculation of “environmental damages,” nor does it provide the government with the power to develop such guidance at a later date through regulation. Because recognition of this kind of damages is very new in Canadian statutes, this omission makes it less likely that a government will try to recover compensation and weakens the potential benefits of including these damages.

  It doesn’t impose unlimited absolute liability.

   
• Finally, and perhaps most crucially, Bill C-46 doesn’t impose unlimited absolute liability on polluters. In fact, Bill C-46 takes a step back by eliminating the government’s ability to recover clean-up costs for a pipeline spill under the Fisheries Act, which applies in certain circumstances to make a polluter absolutely liable, without limit. No liability regime can truly and comprehensively be termed a polluter pays regime unless and until polluters are made absolutely liable for the full costs of environmental harm. Although a liability limit of $1 billion for some companies is a good first step, we only need to look to Michigan and Kalamazoo River to know that the clean-up costs for a major spill can top that number — and that doesn’t include compensation for damages.

The Takeaway

Bill C-46 is a much needed, overdue first step towards a “polluter pays” regime for pipelines in Canada. In general, it could add a lot of good, innovative tools to the National Energy Board’s toolbox that could effectively protect Canadian taxpayers from paying the clean-up costs in the wake of a pipeline spill. How effective these tools will be is, unfortunately, left largely to the discretion of the Board and politicians. This lack of certainty about the degree to which polluters will be required to pay for their pollution undermines what is, in principle, a good first step.

This post originally appeared on the Ecojustice blog.

Image Credit: KARK 4 News via NRDC

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 is a guest post by Karen Campbell, Ecojustice staff lawyer.

The dramatic events unfolding on Burnaby Mountain — where more than 100 protestors have been arrested and charged with civil contempt — has turned a white-hot spotlight on Kinder Morgan’s proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and the National Energy Board (NEB). And both parties are looking a little worse for wear.

Between injunctions and arrests, the furor over Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project has suddenly surpassed that other pipeline, Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline, in terms of controversy. You will recall that despite vociferous opposition from most First Nations and northern B.C. communities, the federal government approved Northern Gateway in June 2014. That approval is now the subject of dozens of legal challenges, including three applications filed by Ecojustice lawyers on behalf of our clients.

We are just one-third of the way through the Kinder Morgan project review, and frustration with the NEB’s stripped-down process — a product of federal environmental law rollbacks tucked into the 2012 budget bill — is steadily mounting, and may have serious implications for other projects, namely TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline.

To accommodate the new 15-month time limit imposed on pipeline reviews the NEB opted to forego cross-examination and community hearings in the Kinder Morgan review. This means intervenors, including municipal governments, affected citizens, First Nations, and environmental and community groups, can’t directly challenge Kinder Morgan’s experts the way they did during Northern Gateway hearings.

Instead, the NEB is relying on two rounds of written questions and answers as a means to test evidence. This “paper hearing” process has already proven to be a poor substitute for oral cross-examination.

Of the 253 responses Ecojustice’s clients received from the company during the first round of information requests, at least 77 — approximately 30 per cent — were inadequate or simply not answered.

All in, the NEB has issued 46 rulings to date in response to various motions and procedural matters in the review, virtually all of which favour Kinder Morgan’s interests. These rulings include upholding Kinder Morgan’s refusal to answer questions from intervenors about its project application (such as a question from Living Oceans Society, one of Ecojustice’s clients, about the makes and models of its oil spill response equipment), and allowing the company to undertake exploratory routing activities on Burnaby Mountain over objections from the City of Burnaby on behalf of its residents. 

Climate change is notably absent from the list of issues the NEB will consider. The NEB’s steadfast refusal to consider the pipeline’s climate impacts — from upstream extraction of bitumen to its downstream use — is inexplicable given the steady thrum of scientists warning us about the need to curtail global greenhouse gas emissions. The omission of climate impacts is even more problematic given the federal government’s continuing failure to take meaningful action on climate change.

The erosion of the NEB’s review process certainly appears to stack the deck in favour of industry. But while the federal government’s gutting of environmental laws in 2012 may have made approving a pipeline easier, if what’s happening on Burnaby Mountain is any indication, it may have also made building a pipeline more difficult. 

Those participating inside the NEB process can tell you that things are not working. Until the NEB addresses the systemic failures of its regulatory process — at minimum, adopting more flexible timelines, restoring cross-examinations and considering climate change — intervenors in the process will continue to be frustrated in their attempts to participate meaningfully, and protests like the one on Burnaby Mountain will likely continue and only get more heated. At this point, Kinder Morgan’s exploratory drilling activity is taking place with RCMP protection.

In addition to the more than 70 people arrested on Burnaby Mountain, six legal challenges have already been filed over the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline project. Conversely, the first Northern Gateway case was not filed until after the Joint Review Panel had made its recommendation to approve the project.

The longer that the NEB ignores the public’s legitimate concerns about the Kinder Morgan project, the more it undermines its own credibility and ability to regulate in the public interest. With yet another major proposal on the horizon in TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline, the NEB would be wise to get its house in order — and quickly.

Image Credit: 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.

Oil companies and fossil fuel investors seeking further developments in the Alberta tar sands have been dealt another setback with the publication of a report showing producers lost $17.1 billion USD between 2010-2013 due to successful public protest campaigns.

Fossil fuel companies lost $30.9 billion overall during the same period partly due to the changing North American oil market but largely because of a fierce grassroots movement against tar sands development, said the report — Material Risks: How Public Accountability Is Slowing Tar Sands Development.

A significant segment of opposition is from First Nations in Canada who are raising sovereignty claims and other environmental challenges, added the report, which was produced by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) and Oil Change International (OCI).

“Tar sands producers face a new kind of risk from growing public opposition,” Tom Sanzillo, director of finance at IEEFA, and one of the lead authors on the report, said. “This opposition has achieved a permanent presence as public sentiment evolves and as the influence of organizations opposed to tar sands production continues to grow.”

Opposition to tar sands unexpected

Steve Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International, added industry officials never anticipated the level and intensity of public opposition to their massive build-out plans.

“Public opposition has caused government and its administrative agencies to take a second and third look,” Kretzmann said. “Legal and other challenges are raising new issues related to environmental protection, indigenous rights and the disruptive impact of new pipeline proposals.”

He added anti-pipeline protests are keeping carbon in the ground, and changing the bottom line for the tar sands industry. 

“Business as usual for Big Oil – particularly in the tar sands – is over,” Kretzmann said.

The report said market forces and public opposition have played a significant role in the cancellation of three major tar sands projects in 2014 alone: Shell’s Pierre River, Total’s Joslyn North, and Statoil’s Corner Project.  

“Combined, these projects would have produced 4.7 billion barrels of bitumen that would in turn have released 2.8 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere,” the 28-page report said. “This is equivalent to the emissions of building 18 new coal plants that would last 40 years each.”

Growing First Nations voices take tar sands story international

“I think it’s pretty inspiring and also uplifting to see the recognition of First Nations that have been very vocal and have articulated their staunch opposition to tar sands expansion in our traditional homelands,” Melina Laboucan-Massimo, a Greenpeace Canada campaigner from the Lubicon Cree, told DeSmog.

Laboucan-Massimo and other representatives from local First Nations like Eriel Deranger from the Fort Chipewyan have been campaigning for years to bring greater awareness to the human health and environmental impacts of rapid tar sands expansion. Laboucan-Massimo said she spent a lot of energy campaigning outside of Canadian borders, speaking to parliamentarians in the U.K., across Europe, as well as to U.S. Congress and the shareholders of major companies.

“We wanted to tell the story on the outside and really put that pressure on the Canadian government to do its due diligence and be accountable to its own citizens,” she said.

“I think that’s a part of what’s been effective in this campaign of accountability, that people not only in Canada but around the world were asking what is happening in Canada? Why is Canada such a climate laggard? Why is the Canadian government not listening to the voices of their own people?”

The growing environmental movement, she said, has been better at incorporating the voices of local First Nations living on the front lines of the tar sands. The movement also now represents a much wider range of social perspectives.

“When we work in coalitions – the environmental movement, First Nations and the labour movement – there’s such a convergence of diverse voices…we’re really starting to see growing public accountability and public opposition being seen and taken seriously.”

She added the future of the tar sands under the Harper government is “tenuous” because “you can see he has a very pro-tar sands agenda,” she said. But, she added, even five or 10 years ago very few Canadians knew what the tar sands were and had little awareness of the switch from conventional to unconventional, extreme forms of energy.

“Now people are quite aware that that’s what been happening and there has been a public dialogue created on that and there has been more pressure on the government to really address the environmental concerns, the health issues and indigenous rights violations. I feel like people really are a lot more aware of these issues now than in the past.”

Keystone XL delay shows tar sands "weakness"

The report says the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is one of the most talked about North American energy and political issues of the era.

“Once thought inevitable, the project and Canada’s plan to expand tar sands production have been confronted by an accumulation of economic and political risks creating a veritable ‘carbon blockade.’”

Project delays are taking a financial and political toll on proposed tar sands projects, the report said.

“The delays and cancellations have exposed the fact that tar sands investments, once thought to be highly lucrative, are showing signs of financial weakness. With growing public awareness and market hesitancy, expansion of tar sands production in Canada will remain contested terrain for the foreseeable future.”  

The report also noted that the tar sands sector faces a growing constellation of risks as project economics become pressured by low oil prices and shrinking revenues, rising costs, smaller profit margins, tougher capital markets, transport constraints, environmental challenges and protectionist legislation.

Nine of 10 leading tar sands producers in Canada have underperformed the stock market in the last five years, it said, adding industry experts have recently downgraded their outlook for future tar sands production.

“Tar sands pipeline campaigns are a recent example of how public advocacy efforts can alter capital investment decision making,” the report said.

“The Keystone XL campaign has managed thus far to delay a final governmental decision on the project while raising public awareness about the environmental costs of tar sands development.”

“These citizen interventions have resulted in increased diligence by government agencies with public health and environmental mandates, impaired the project development process of the capital markets and mobilized a permanent, political constituency in support of alternatives to tar sands expansion.”

The report noted there was an expectation that the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline would receive necessary approvals quickly when it was originally proposed in 2008 and be up and running by late 2011.

“Time and events changed this storyline,” the report added. “By 2011 Russ Girling, the CEO of TransCanada, said ‘There is no way we could have ever predicted that we would become the lightning rod for a debate around fossil fuels and the development of the Canadian oil sands.’”

According to a report in the Guardian, Canada has staked its energy future on a massive expansion of tar sands, which hold the world’s third largest reserve of crude after Saudia Arabia and Venezuela.

“But the huge amounts of water and solvents needed to extract oil from bitumen dramatically boost greenhouse gas output and, on latest production forecasts, will increase Canada’s CO2 emissions by 56 megatonnes by 2020,” the Guardian said.

Image Credit: People's Climate March 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.

This is a guest post by Glen Thompson. It originally appeared on Abbotsford Today the Watershed Sentinel and is republished here with permission.

“Once the oil leaves the dock, Kinder Morgan holds no obligation or responsibility, even 10 metres out – that’s the carrier’s liability.”

At the last two information events in Chilliwack, Kinder Morgan brought a large team of professionals and specialized aids to cover an exhaustive range of issues. Resembling a Royal Commission, everything concerning the proposed pipeline was in the tow of a Subject Matter Expert and neatly secured in a rolling briefcase.

The first audience was the full Board of the Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) and the second, an invited group of government regulatory officials, community leaders and representatives of major environmental organizations. Audiences with a formidable amount of assembled oversight.

The new pipeline, it seems, is as complicated as the first mission to the moon, with a robust 15,000 page draft plan, guiding a small army of civil engineers, scientists, and project leads. It took no less than nine expert presenters with technical analysts standing by, to present an hour and a half project overview to the FVRD Board.  

Like what you're reading? Help us bring you more. Click here to support DeSmog Canada's Kickstarter campaign to clean up the climate and energy debate in Canada.

Sitting two rows deep, the project leads extolled advanced science and gleaned wisdom distilled from forensic analysis of past catastrophes. The presentation team successfully stick-handled their way through the Boards member’s queries; air quality, the depth of the pipeline in deep rooted agricultural crops, financial compensation capacity and riparian protection.

The second event was a long afternoon of Kinder Morgan being slow cooked by fully qualified, and at times pointed, questions from a highly informed group of community leaders, advocates and government agency analysts. Kinder Morgan walked away roughed up, limping a bit, but uninjured. Every concern it seemed, had a graph, a published opinion or a mitigation plan and supposedly every bit of it, was reasonable, given the daunting task of moving extremely heavy oil, over mountains, in February.

At the FVRD meeting, a single phrase, made by the pipeline’s head director, hung in the air like a high fly ball. I’ll never forget the finality in his voice, “Once the oil leaves the dock, Kinder Morgan holds no obligation or responsibility, even 10 metres out – that’s the carrier’s liability.” Nobody caught the ball.

The Exxon Valdez

The oil cargo that was loaded into the Exxon Valdez traveled safely through the supply pipeline from Prudhoe Bay without incident. The Alaska coast disaster had nothing to do with the pipeline, and everything to do with the carrier. The Kinder Morgan director’s sharp statement pulls the sheet off the question: Who will take Kinder Morgan’s oil out of the Port of Vancouver? West Coast oil tankers are a critical link in the supply chain between the Alberta Rigs and the far off Chinese refineries.

The little known outcome from the Exxon Valdez case is worth considering when examining the full supply route.

The Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef in 1989 dumping hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil into Prince William Sound. The ship’s Captain Joseph Hazelwood, an alcoholic, was reported to be intoxicated and had stepped away from the bridge at a critical moment.

A lawsuit alleged Exxon negligently allowed a known alcoholic to be in charge of a vessel and failed to maintain a collision avoidance system that, if functioning, would have warned the crew. The system had been broken for over a year.

In 1994, international media outlets hammered out stories when a jury’s verdict announced Exxon would have to pay a massive $5.3 billion dollar fine. This was enough to pay for the cleanup, compensate 38,000 economic victims and punitively punish the corporation firmly enough to prevent it from ever happening again. The public was satisfied in the justice system and the media moved on.

Exxon Appeals

In 2002, Exxon appealed. The case was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the fine was dropped to $4 billion. Exxon appealed. The fine was raised to $4.5 billion. Exxon appealed. The 2nd appeal ruling was struck down and the fine was reduced to $2.5 billion. Exxon petitioned for a rehearing but failed, the $2.5 billion fine was upheld.

After the accident, Exxon towed its ripped up vessel to California for repair. The cost of putting her back in service would be $30 million dollars. In 1990 the U.S. Congress passed a law (375 – 5) that prohibits a tanker that has spilled more than one million gallons of oil from entering Prince William Sound.

In 1998 Exxon launched a legal action against the law and tried to return the ship to service on the Alaskan coast. They claimed the law unfairly targeted Exxon, and argued past incidents are not an indicator of an increased likelihood of a future accident. In 2002 Exxon lost the case and by that time the law had prevented 18 ships from entering the sound.

In 2007, Exxon filed a fourth appeal of the fine, this time in the U.S. Supreme Court. Using past case settlements Exxon lawyers argued that a punitive judgement in a maritime case based on reckless behavior should not impose a fine greater than the amount of compensation damages.

In 90 minutes Exxon’s lawyers reduced the fine by $2 billion dollars from $2.5 billion to $500 million. The 5 – 3 decision was supported by (former Monsanto attorney) Justice Clarence Thomas. Exxon paid what amounts to 10 per cent of the original fine.

Exxon is based in New York. It is the world’s third largest company by revenue (est. $420 billion annually). It is readily subject to, and bound by, American law; but despite this, the prosecution of Exxon was largely unsuccessful.

If a U.S. Court has difficulty prosecuting a U.S. company, how would a Canadian court fair prosecuting a Chinese company?

The lesson of the Valdez is that petroleum exporting ports such as the Port of Vancouver need solid legal protection and regulations in place prior to spills. A Chinese Oil conglomerate is likely to be even more challenging to fine or regulate than Exxon.

Who will ship oil to China, state-run China Shipping, Exxon’s shipping subsidiary, Liberian Oil Tankers?

The Kinder Morgan pipeline approval must include a regulatory mechanism for preventing any flavour of Liberian Oil Tankers, a financial bond formula to cover spills, and a double hull safe shipping certification, like the one in place in the Mediterranean. The pipeline should not be considered without these controls.

The current pipeline approval system is as irresponsible as licensing a pub without a drunk driver law. Kinder Morgan needs to serve its oil responsibly. It is not reasonable or logical to separate a pipeline approval from tanker regulation.

The Exxon Valdez was renamed several times by Exxon and eventually sold to a Hong Kong company. She collided with another ship in 2010 and sent to ship breakers for scrap. Under her final name Oriental Nicety, she was the subject of a case in the Indian Supreme Court, beached and dismantled at Alang, India in 2012.

Image Credit: Exxon Valdez cleanup via Buffalo State University.

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 average Canadian doesn’t place the economy above other concerns like education, health care and environment according to a a public-opinion survey analysis performed by the Privy Council Office (PCO), a group of the Prime Minister’s top advisors, in January.

As the Canadian Press reports, the research suggests major federal government policies don’t line up with Canadian priorities.

The analysis followed public opinion research of 3,000 survey respondents and 12 focus groups, conducted by NRG Research Group, on behalf of the Finance Department. The PCO is not obligated to routinely make its research public.

The research showed Canadians have “little enthusiasm” for the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, “even among supporters,” the January 25 PCO report on the findings states. Since then the pipeline was federally approved.

Individuals participating in the focus group research, conducted across Canada from B.C. to Nova Scotia, citied concerns over potential oil spills off the coast of British Columbia.

“Detractors worry about the environmental consequences in the event of a spill, particularly as a result of a tanker accident off the B.C. coast.”

“There is an appreciation that increased market access for oil will be economically beneficial but there is still a desire to do so in a more environmentally safe manner.”

Participants said they wanted to see less export of Canadian resources, suggesting they be processed and refined here in an environmentally responsible way.

Megan Leslie, environment critic for the NDP, says the report “shows that the NDP have been saying all along, that B.C. MPs, Conservative MPs, are going to have to answer to this.”

“There is not support for this project in British Columbia and across Canada,” she told the Canadian Press.

“It’s also really heartening to see that people spontaneously talked about resource development through a sustainable lens. They talked about refining and processing here in Canada. People get it,” she said.

When asked for comment on the research, David Barnabe, spokesman for the Finance Department told the Canadian Press, “the use of quantitative (telephone survey data) and qualitative (focus group) research allow the Finance Department to get a clearer sense of the evolution of the public mood towards the state of the economy, Canadians’ sense of personal economic well-being and government actions in the economic arena.”

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 new lawsuit filed Monday challenges the federal Cabinet's decision to approve the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. The suit, launched by the Federation of BC Naturalists, or BC Nature, asks the Federal Court of Appeal to allow an application that declares the pipeline’s June 17, 2014 approval invalid. Today is the last day parties may apply to the Federal Court to initiate a judicial review of the project's approval.

BC Nature filed a previous lawsuit in January 2014 against the Joint Review Panel’s (JRP) recommendation the federal government approve the pipeline. That suit, filed by the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre (ELC), is still ongoing and challenges the JRP’s justification of “serious harm” to caribou and grizzly bears as well as findings regarding the consequences of a potential major oil spill.

“In the lawsuit filed today, we argue that due to fundamental flaws in the JRP’s report, Cabinet was deprived of the legal authority to make a final decision on the pipeline,” Chris Tollefson, ELC Executive Director and lawyer for BC Nature, said.

“Cabinet was also legally required to give reasons for its approval, which it utterly failed to do,” he added. “For these and other reasons, Cabinet’s decision lacks a tenable legal foundation.”

The Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline was approved by Cabinet in June, six months after the JRP recommended the pipeline be built subject to 209 conditions.

Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford said the federal approval of the pipeline took into consideration the JRP’s claim the project is “in the public interest.”

Five legal challenges were filed against the JRP's recommendation to approve the pipeline and at least two have now been launched against Cabinet's approval. Last week the Gitxaala First Nation filed a suit with the Federal Courts, arguing the project would infringe on their Aboriginal rights and title and that the Nation was not properly consulted before the project was approved.

If the Federal Court of Appeals approves BC Nature’s challenge, the group will have five days to file a request for judicial review of Cabinet’s decision to approve the project.

“BC Nature is one of British Columbia’s oldest conservation organizations. Yet in our long history, we have never before felt compelled to go to court to defend our mission and the work we do to protect wildlife across the province,” Dr. Kees Visser, BC Nature President, said. “But with this potentially catastrophic project, we had to take a stand.”

Visser, a former oil and gas exploration geologist, added: “BC Nature is confident in the merits of both of its lawsuits challenging the approval of this ill-conceived project and looks forward to presenting them at the Federal Court of Appeal.”

Image Credit: Dogwood Initiative via Flick.

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.