TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline is officially dead.

Announced via press release on Thursday, the news confirmed long-held suspicions that the $15.7 billion, 4,500 km oilsands pipeline simply wouldn’t cut it in today’s economic context.

But that hasn’t stopped commentators on all sides from pouncing on the cancellation as proof of their political project. Conservative politicians have lambasted the federal Liberals for introducing carbon pricing and new rules on pipeline applications, while environmentalists have claimed the company’s decision was a direct result of their organizing.

DeSmog Canada is here to help wade through the mess. Here are five things you should know about the cancelled Alberta-to-New Brunswick pipeline.

1. Energy East was primarily for export

Perhaps the most lingering myth about Energy East was that it would be built to displace foreign oil imports in Eastern Canada.

In fact, that very notion was repeated by Alberta Premier Rachel Notley in her Facebook post about the cancellation: “We believe this nation-building project would have benefited all of Canada through new jobs, investment, energy security and the ability to displace oil being imported into Canada from overseas and the United States,” she wrote.

Except it’s never been true.

An application by TransCanada to the National Energy Board back in May 2016 indicated that it would ship an estimated 281 tankers per year of oil, equivalent to about 900,000 barrels per day. That’s more than 80 per cent of the pipeline’s planned 1.1 million barrel per day capacity, leaving around 200,000 barrels per day to be refined at New Brunswick’s Irving Oil refineries.

That’s far below the 736,000 barrels per day that TransCanada suggested is being imported from foreign countries due to a lack of a west-to-east pipeline. In addition, Irving Oil’s president suggested in 2016 that his company wouldn’t necessarily displace its use of cheaper barrels from Saudi Arabia with product from Alberta.

Energy East was never about energy independence. The whole point was to ship oil by tanker to the U.S. Gulf Coast for refining.

2. Canada’s regulatory process is catching up with reality

Back in early September, TransCanada requested that the National Energy Board suspend its review of the Energy East project for 30 days.

That followed news that the review panel for the pipeline would be evaluating the climate impacts of upstream and downstream emissions associated with the project: a first for any major Canadian pipeline. (The Keystone XL pipeline in the U.S. was also subject to a climate test.)

It’s something that many industry boosters have now locked on to as the pipeline’s deathblow.

What’s often left unacknowledged is that Canada has committed to international climate change goals under the 2015 Paris Agreement, requiring the country to slash 230 megatonnes in annual greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. That’s where policies like the federal carbon pricing mandate and the overhaul of the National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency can come into play, integrating climate tests into the very fabric of reviews.

In addition, many critics conveniently fail to mention that the entire National Energy Board review process for Energy East was suspended with all decisions thrown out because the National Energy Board privately met with TransCanada consultant and former Quebec premier Jean Charest.

The complete restarting of the process and inclusion of a climate test was the price of doing business in a country ostensibly committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and introducing transparent environmental reviews.

3. Canada doesn’t necessarily need more pipelines

Energy East was the last of the big four Canadian pipelines to get underway.

Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain and Enbridge’s Line 3 pipelines were both approved by the current Liberal government, while TransCanada’s Keystone XL was resuscitated with the election of U.S. President Donald Trump.

All offer better prices for exporters. As noted by University of Alberta professor Andrew Leach, shipping crude to New Brunswick via Energy East would cost $10/barrel, far higher than other networks.

That matters a lot given heavily reduced forecasts for oilsands production in coming decades. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers now estimates that oilsands production is expected to hit 3.7 million barrels per day by 2030. That’s down from their 2013 forecast of 5.2 million barrels, when Energy East was first announced.

In other words, Alberta at most  needs an additional 1.3 million barrels of pipeline capacity by 2030. Just two of the three aforementioned pipelines would easily allow for that.

And that’s to say nothing of Alberta’s cap on oilsands emissions of 100 megatonnes per year (for comparison purposes, Ontario plans to reduce all of its emissions to 115 megatonnes by 2030).

Unless there are substantial technological innovations that cut per-barrel emissions, it’s expected that the province will hit its emissions cap by 2030. That calls into question the need for several of the pipelines that are further along in the process, let alone Energy East.

5 Things You Need to Know About the Cancellation of #EnergyEast https://t.co/yUPyOUruzy #oilsands #climate #cdnpoli #keystonexl pic.twitter.com/6jJV9KqGLd

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 6, 2017

4. The majority of Canadians want to decrease oil demand

Spend too much time in the “Canadian politics” corner of Twitter and you might be inclined to believe that the average Canadian overwhelmingly favours increased oil and gas development.

But that’s not at all the case, based on recent polling numbers by Abacus data.

A poll published in September noted that 55 per cent of people would prefer to see demand for oil drop in the coming decade, with 65 per cent wanting to see a decline in the next 30 years. Even in Alberta, there are more people who wish to see oil demand decline in 10 years (38 per cent) compared to people who want to see oil demand increase (28 per cent).

There’s also been a marked drop in support for pipelines. In 2014, 58 per cent of Canadians supported building more pipeline capacity. Now, that number has dropped to 44 per cent.

In addition, when asked “recently, I’ve grown more worried about climate change and it is changing my view of how long we should use oil,” 22 per cent of people said “strongly agree” while another 37 per cent said “agree.”

This clear shift in public opinion is in line with the global consensus that the world needs to rapidly reduce emissions to avoid the worst of climate change.

5. This was about harsh economics

Environmental organizations across the country loudly celebrated in the wake of the cancellation. To be sure, Indigenous and environmental organizing has greatly raised the public profile of major pipeline projects like Energy East and arguably contributed to delaying the process while market conditions changed. But it’s seriously doubtful that the project would have been cancelled if oil prices were hovering in the $70-plus/barrel range and the company’s Keystone XL project was still blocked by the U.S.

TransCanada couldn’t make the numbers work. There was enormous unused capacity risk at play. To proceed with a multi-decade project in an era of sustained low oil prices and depressed production forecasts would have been a baffling decision.

Now, the company only faces a $1 billion charge to write down the project instead of $16 billion in capital expenses that might not ever be recovered. This move also allows them to focus more on making Keystone XL happen, and investing in markets with less immediate competition.

It doesn’t have quite the same inspirational tone to it. But hey, that’s capitalism for you.

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.

Canadian pipeline company TransCanada announced today it will no longer be proceeding with its proposed Energy East Pipeline and Eastern Mainline projects.

“After careful review of changed circumstances, we will be informing the National Energy Board that we will no longer be proceeding with our Energy East and Eastern Mainline applications,” said president and CEO Russ Girling in a statement released Thursday morning.

The $15.7 billion Energy East pipeline planned to transport 1.1 million barrels of oil per day from western Canada’s oilsands to refineries in Quebec and Saint John, New Brunswick, as well as an export terminal in New Brunswick.

In late August, the National Energy Board — an independent regulatory agency that oversees international and inter-provincial oil and gas pipelines —  announced it would consider upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions in determining whether the Energy East pipeline was in the national interest. This marked a first for the board, which had come under fire for not considering climate impacts in other pipeline hearings.

Both Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline and Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline received regulatory approval with no consideration of their impacts on greenhouse gas emissions.

TransCanada asked the National Energy Board to put its regulatory review hearings on hold while it reviewed the decision to include an assessment of the pipeline’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

The decision to abandon the project comes amid low oil prices and an expected slow-down in oilsands production. Several international companies have sold off oilsands projects in the past year.

“The reason that Shell, Total and Statoil are pulling out, and the reason that Exxon has had to write down much of its Kearl Lake reserves, isn’t because of the emissions profile of the oilsands bitumen,” Jeff Rubin, senior fellow of Centre for International Governance Innovation, told DeSmog Canada in March. “It’s rather because it doesn’t make any economic sense, before we even look at emissions pricing.”

TransCanada Cancels Energy East Oilsands Pipeline. What now? https://t.co/eiNT24HaC9 #EnergyEast #cdnpoli #oilsands #climate pic.twitter.com/alGcqImBXb

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 5, 2017

In November 2015, the Alberta government announced its climate plan, which gained support from a wide range of environmentalists and the CEOs of Suncor, Canadian Natural Resource Ltd. (CNRL), Shell and Cenovus.

The plan caps oilsands emissions at 100 megatonnes per year. Environment Canada figures predicted a 2020 output of 103 megatonnes from the sector, so for production to expand beyond current projects, per barrel emissions will need to be reduced.

Pipelines have become a symbol of the larger debate about climate change, with new pipeline proposals threatening to enable increased oil production at a time when scientists and world leaders agree rapid de-carbonization is needed.

New polling released by Abacus Data in September indicates a majority of Canadians (59 per cent) are growing “more worried about climate change and it is changing my view of how long we should use oil.” That includes 48 per cent of Albertans and 35 per cent of Conservative voters.

“Energy, pipeline and climate issues have been among the most highly charged political debates in Canada for several years,” said Abacus chairman Bruce Anderson.

“What we are seeing in our numbers now is an evolution of opinion: concerns about climate change have deepened, and belief that the world is going to transition away from oil has grown.”

Three pipelines are still in the running: the Trans Mountain pipeline to the B.C. coast, the Keystone XL pipeline to the Gulf coast and Enbridge’s Line 3 export line to the U.S. All of these pipelines have received regulatory approval in Canada — but hurdles still remain.

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley said Thursday that now  Energy East is dead, there is an even greater urgency in completing the Trans Mountain project to B.C. to diversify the industry's export markets beyond the United States.

The B.C. government doesn’t share her view, however, and is currently part of a court challenge against Trans Mountain being heard this week.

The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and others blamed TransCanada’s decision on Ottawa’s “unclear decision-making process.”

However, New Brunswick Premier Brian Gallant told the Globe and Mail he received assurances from Ottawa that the greenhouse gas assessment didn’t represent an insurmountable hurdle for TransCanada.

"Given the positive signals the federal government has sent to TransCanada over the last weeks . . . we believe it is clear that TransCanada is not proceeding with its application for the Energy East pipeline because recent changes to world market conditions and the price of oil have negatively impacted the viability of the project," Gallant said.

TransCanada had hit regulatory hurdles even before the greenhouse gas assessment was announced. In the summer of 2016, the National Energy Board’s review of Energy East was compromised after it was revealed by the National Observer that former Quebec Premier Jean Charest met the chairman and two commissioners on the National Energy Board while working for TransCanada.

The National Energy Board ended up suspending the hearings into the proposed 4,500-kilometre pipeline and selecting a new panel.

TransCanada is expected to take an estimated $1-billion charge on its pre-tax fourth-quarter earnings due to Thursday’s announcement.

Photo: shannonpatrick17 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.

Access to world markets for Canadian oil has been available since 1956 when the Westridge dock was constructed in Burnaby, B.C., and linked to the Trans Mountain pipeline.

The dock’s export capacity has rarely been used to its full potential in more than 60 years — yet the oil industry and politicians continue to make the argument that Canada needs new pipelines to get oil to world markets.

Here are four reasons that argument doesn’t fly.

1) Existing Export Capacity Isn’t Being Used

In 2011, the National Energy Board (NEB) provided Kinder Morgan with a favourable and unprecedented ruling when it allocated guaranteed access to the dock under 10-year take-or-pay contracts with five crude oil shippers.

Kinder Morgan promised that 79,000 barrels a day of tidewater access would lead to the development of international markets for Alberta’s crude.

It didn’t.

Guaranteed access means the dock can service 60 crude oil tankers a year. But according to statistics compiled by Port Metro Vancouver, not even a third of that number were loaded during 2016 — and most of those tankers went to U.S. ports. The equivalent of one tanker was loaded with Alberta’s heavy oil and destined for a non-U.S. port during the entire year. Seventeen went to U.S. destinations.

If Canadian oil needs to get to world markets as desperately as some claim, why isn’t existing access being used? It’s because there is no demand for it.

2) Energy East Won’t Reduce Reliance on Foreign Oil

“The lamentable state of crude oil pipeline infrastructure makes parts of this country reliant on foreign oil and our petroleum exporters dependent on the United States, which buys Canadian product at a deep discount,” wrote Conservative Senator Michael MacDonald in the Hill Times.

Eastern Canada has a dependency on imported oil because the refineries located there are configured to process primarily light oil. Energy East is intended to facilitate the transport of diluted bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands so will not reduce eastern Canada’s reliance on imported crude to any significant degree.

But there is another source of dependency on imported oil that is rarely acknowledged. Oilsands producers are dependent on imported condensate as a diluent for bitumen blending purposes. This is because oilsands heavy does not flow down a pipeline unassisted — it’s too dense.

Canada does not produce enough condensate to meet oilsands producers’ demand. Since 2005, condensate imports from the U.S. have increased significantly. For every three barrels of increased oilsands production, a barrel of condensate is imported. Thus, as oilsands production expands, Canada’s import dependency expands with it.

So if we want to see a reduction in Canada’s reliance on foreign oil imports we must advocate for a reduction in oilsands production or an increase in upgrading and refinery capacity in Alberta. Otherwise, the minute bitumen is shipped along a pipeline, it generates a growing dependency on crude imports.

3) Canadian Oil Producers Are Not Truly Dependent on U.S. Markets

Some suggest that Canadian producers are somehow dependent on U.S. markets. The majority of Canadian producers are not “dependent” on the US. They have integrated refinery operations there. To a significant extent Canadian producers supply their own crude to themselves or their joint-venture partners as U.S. refiners.

When Suncor sells into its Commerce City, Colorado, refinery, or Cenovus supplies its facilities in Wood River, Illinois, and Borger, Texas, owned in a joint venture with Phillips 66, or Husky supplies its refinery in Toledo, Ohio, it owns in partnership with BP, or Imperial and its parent, ExxonMobile, deliver crude from their joint venture to ExxonMobile’s U.S. facilities, it is hardly accurate to suggest that they are “dependent” on the U.S. market.

4) Canadian Oil Is Not Selling at a ‘Discount’

Many argue that the U.S. “buys Canadian product at a deep discount,” but that’s incorrect. There is a natural price discount between U.S. oil and Canadian heavy oil that will always exist because of quality and transportation cost differences.

Oil is traded in U.S. currency. Canadian crude is priced against a benchmark to U.S. produced light oil; West Texas Intermediate (WTI). To examine the differential and whether there is a discount that is outside the expected natural range requires that we compare WTI to Canadian crude prices. To do this for oilsands crude is to look at the price for WTI as compared to the price for Western Canadian Select (WCS)—the highest grade of Canadian heavy.

The natural discount for WCS compared to WTI, according to the National Energy Board is about 30 per cent — or roughly $20 US per barrel. A price differential of WCS to WTI of less than $20 U.S. would therefore be considered a “premium” price for WCS. WCS has been trading at “premium” since 2014. Currently, the differential is only $14 U.S. a barrel.

Robyn Allan is an independent economist and was an expert intervenor at the National Energy Board Trans Mountain Expansion hearing.

Photo: Jon Olav Eikenes 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.

There just aren’t enough lawyers in B.C. to fight all the environmental battles First Nations, individuals and groups face on a regular basis in the province, according to University of Victoria lawyer Chris Tollefson.

As a solution, Tollefson, the founder of the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre, and a handful of legal experts and litigators recently launched a new public interest environmental law outfit that will take on some of the most powerful forces in B.C., from Malaysian-owned Petronas to government ministries to BC Hydro.

The new legal non-profit, the Pacific Centre for Environmental Law and Litigation (CELL), will focus on environmental litigation, legislative reform and, as Tollefson describes it, “training up the next generation of young public interest environmental lawyers.”

Tollefson, who served as a former president of Ecojustice, one of Canada's most prominent environmental legal non-profits, said there is more work than existing organizations can handle.

That sentiment is echoed by Bob Peart, executive director of Sierra Club BC, and one of the centre's first clients. 

"I think litigation is vital and it's so hard to move this government in any other way," Peart told DeSmog Canada. "You can build up the wall of public noise as much as you like but litigation seems to be a lever they at least half listen to."

Illegal Site C Permits at Centre of First Case

The organization launched with a case aimed at the B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations for allegedly issuing illegal permits to expedite BC Hydro’s Site C construction work, as DeSmog Canada first reported.

The Centre filed for a judicial review of those permits last week in the B.C. Supreme Court on behalf of the Sierra Club BC and citizen Josette Weir.

Peart said the issue of the illegal permits reminds him of other stories of government corruption.

"The first reaction I had was thinking of the triple delete e-mails," he said. "What's the difference between 'you erase those e-mails' and someone saying 'please, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, can you approve this?' "

Peart said there is a long-standing tradition of using litigation to advance environmental issues and to hold government to account, but the need for that strategy is increasing over time.

Violating permitting rules or skirting proper consultation with First Nations seems to part of the due process with the current government, he said, adding they have come to expect litigation..

"It's a spin of the dice, risk analysis on their part."

Tollefson said the illegal Site C permits are a reminder of the importance of challenging government activity in the courts and holding government to account.

“That is exactly the kind of case CELL was created to take on,” Tollefson said. “This is the kind of situation that desperately needs to be brought to the courts for adjudication.”

“The evidence here suggests that a government official not only didn’t follow the rule of law but was actively assisting BC Hydro in breaking the law. If that’s true that should concern all British Columbians regardless of how they feel about Site C."

New Public Interest Law Office to Fight BC’s Biggest Enviro Battles https://t.co/VjwsCm1GjN @pcell_law #bcpoli pic.twitter.com/lN5NWeG5Ve

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 29, 2016

Training Next Generation of Public Interest Environmental Litigators

Tollefson said the new organization will also focus on inspiring and training the next generation of B.C.’s environmental lawyers.

“We believe very much that the best way and maybe the only way to train young lawyers to be litigators is to bring them into ongoing cases, to make them part of a team that is working on a piece of litigation together.”

The centre will work closely with the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre where Tollefson and law students have taken up cases aimed at the Northern Gateway pipeline review process or an expanded aluminum smelter in Kitimat, B.C.

Anthony Ho, a recent graduate of the University of Victoria’s law program, said he is excited to join the centre and continue on with some of the important litigation work he experienced through the Environmental Law Centre.

“There’s no end to the important public interest cases that could be brought all across Canada, but especially in B.C.,” Ho said.

Major pipeline proposals, energy projects like Site C, fracking and other energy development in the province have generated a significant level of public awareness around the need to balance economic development with environmental protection, Ho said.

“I do believe that British Columbians are becoming more and more aware of their environmental rights and more and more supportive of the idea that those rights need to be protected and if necessary vindicated through the justice system.”

Ho said the practice of public interest environmental law means ensuring citizens are able to bring cases forward that protect their environmental rights and bolster their access to justice, despite a lack of capacity or resources.

“If there aren’t lawyers out there or environmental law organizations out there who are able to take on those cases on a pro bono basis and represent those citizens and citizen groups in bringing forward these pieces of litigation then as a society we lose the chance to ensure that environmental justice is done.”

Once in a Generation Opportunity to Fix Broken System

Tollefson said a major focus for the centre will be on legal reform, especially when it comes to the review of major development projects.

The Trudeau government campaigned on a promised to make Canada’s pipeline review process more robust but has so far failed to deliver on that promise for major pipeline projects under review like the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain and TransCanada Energy East pipelines.

The government has also promised to review major pieces of legislation like the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act that determines, in large part, how major developments like the Pacific Northwest LNG export facility are characterized during the review process.

But Tollefson said he sees a major opportunity for change.

“I think we potentially have a once in a generation opportunity here to fix a host of problems with how we do environmental assessments and how we approve major energy projects.”

“It’s a daunting task but … it’s absolutely critical that we weigh in and try to steer the federal government towards a successful completion of this project that they’ve taken on.”

Tollefson said he thinks an important part of that overhaul resides in ensuring the courts are given a mandate to supervise the work of tribunals and the work of bureaucrats in a more rigorous way.

“We believe the courts have taken a too deferential approach to reviewing the work of bodies like the National Energy Board and bureaucrats,” he said.

A new model would increase the ability of the courts to take a more hands on role in assessing if decisions, on pipelines or other major energy projects, measure up to the rule of law and procedure, he said.

“That’s something we’ll be urging the government to include in this new review.”

Image: Screenshot from Pacific Centre for Environmental Law and Litigation. Salmon image: Ian McAllister

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.

By Chris Tollefson for IRPP.

The Trudeau government has recently announced a sweeping review process that could culminate in what has been described as “the most fundamental transformation of federal environmental law in a generation.” This review, among other things, will determine the fate of the controversial law that governs federal environmental assessments, known as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA, 2012).

Ironically, CEAA, 2012, a statute that the Harper government radically revamped to be industry-friendly, nowadays has very few friends. Even key industry insiders admit that the legislation, aimed primarily at expediting the approval of major new resource development projects, has been a spectacular failure. Not only are many major environment assessments (EAs) that are underway under CEAA, 2012 stalled, mired in controversy, tied up in litigation (or all of the above), but more importantly, Canadians have lost trust in the way we assess and make decisions about these projects.

Can CEAA, 2012 be renovated, or is it a tear-down? There are at least ten good reasons to believe the latter.

1. Trust. During the last federal election, a key theme that resonated with many voters was Mr. Trudeau’s claim that the institutions and processes we have put in place to assess major new projects have lost the trust of Canadians. Once lost, trust is not something that is easily regained. Band-Aid solutions that seek to remedy the deep-seated flaws of processes by annexing new reviews (such as creating a new consultation panel after the NEB’s review of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) project), have little or no chance of restoring trust let alone the social licence upon which such projects must ultimately depend.
2. The need for a new approach to EA. Our current EA system is primarily focused on identifying whether proposed projects will have “significant” adverse environmental effects. This approach is misguided. Large, controversial projects should not be able to secure approval simply because the proponent’s scientists manage to persuade federal regulators that the predicted adverse effects of a project fall below this ill-defined “significance” threshold. We need assessments to do more than generate predictions about the significance of a project’s adverse effects. Future assessments should instead ask, as Robert B. Gibson, Meinhard Doelle and A. John Sinclair advocate, will this project make a net contribution to our sustainability as a nation? This question becomes especially critical post-Paris. In Warren Buffett’s words: “Predicting rain doesn’t count. Building arks does.”
3. The National Energy Board. Under CEAA, 2012, the National Energy Board (NEB) was given exclusive jurisdiction over federal EAs involving pipelines and other major energy projects. This was a job the NEB neither wanted nor was suited to. Traditionally, its wheelhouse has been technical issues, such as pipeline thickness requirements, not the value-laden or science-driven questions that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is more accustomed to dealing with. And while the NEB approves projects based on a “public interest” test, it has tended to regard the public interest as being largely synonymous with the interests of western Canadian energy producers. To secure the trust of Canadians, federal EAs need to be conducted by an agency that has the expertise and the independence from the interests it is charged with regulating.
4. Catastrophic but “unlikely” project effects. Increasingly, companies have been able to persuade the NEB to interpret CEAA, 2012 in ways that undermine its most basic purposes, including its obligation to assess projects in a manner consistent with the precautionary principle. For instance, in the Northern Gateway and TMX review processes, proponents of the projects argued that they should not be required to model the effects of a large catastrophic oil spill because the odds of such a spill were not “likely” (i.e., less than 50 percent probable). As BC Nature argued in its legal challenge against the Northern Gateway approval, such an interpretation of CEAA, 2012 which the NEB accepted, deprives the ultimate decision maker (a responsible minister or the cabinet) of key information about the potential catastrophic impacts of a project, simply because the disaster is not statistically likely to happen.
5. Federal leadership. For major projects, especially those with serious climate change implications, the federal government should not allow the provinces simply to take on responsibility, or substitute (“sub in”) for doing the required federal EA. The federal government gave itself the power to agree to substituted EA’s under CEAA, 2012, primarily at the urging of the province of British Columbia. Since then, B.C. has been given permission to sub in for the federal government on fourteen occasions; mainly on mines and liquid natural gas project assessments. These delegation arrangements raise serious public trust issues, particularly given the perception that provincial assessments are less rigorous and more prone to regulatory capture. A case in point is theTaseko mine review that swiftly secured EA approval from B.C., but was later twice turned down by federal EA assessors. A new generation EA system should encourage mutual cooperation and integration, and eschew delegation of key assessment duties.
6. Provincial leadership. For similar reasons, the provinces should not hand off the ball to federal agencies to do EAs that profoundly affect provincial interests. Effective EA require both levels of government to show leadership. At around the same time that the B.C. government was gearing up to lobby Ottawa for the right to sub in for the federal government under CEAA, 2012, it also inked an agreement with the NEB that delegated to the feds the province’s power to assess and render an EA decision on all future major energy projects (including Northern Gateway and TMX). In a powerfully worded decision, the B.C. Supreme Court recently called this agreement an “abdication” of provincial responsibility. B.C. now finds itself in the unenviable and difficult position of conducting its own assessment of the Northern Gateway and TMX applications, after the fact.
7. Cumulative effects. CEAA, 2012 fails almost completely to grapple with one of the most pervasive and vexing issues in environmental assessment: the phenomenon of cumulative effects—predicted changes to the environment from a proposed project in conjunction with past, present, and future projects or other activities in the same region. For those who work in EA, the pressing need to be more rigorous and systematic about how we account for cumulative effects is beyond dispute. In Northern Gateway, one of the few cases where a federal agency found that there were likely to be significant adverse cumulative effects on an endangered species (the iconic Woodland Caribou), that same agency recommended that the effects were “justified in the circumstances” without offering reasons other than the project was in the public interest. We need to fundamentally rethink the way we assess and make decisions about cumulative effects. And because the nature of those effects can often implicate national interests, it is essential that the federal government take leadership.
8. Aboriginal rights and title. Some of the loudest voices in the chorus of those calling for the complete repeal ofCEAA, 2012 are Indigenous Peoples. And understandably so. There is complete and utter confusion over the role of EA authorities, as opposed to other processes and venues, in discharging the Crown’s constitutional duty to consult. This is a key issue that the Federal Court of Appeal addressed in its recent decision in the Northern Gateway case. Now that Canada has finally adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it is time for it to turn its mind to how to redesign federal EA in a manner that complies with its legal duties and responsibilities under domestic constitutional and international law.
9. Independent science. CEAA, 2012 depends heavily on the science put forward by industrial proponents and their hired consultants. It is then largely left to the community organizations, conservation groups and First Nations to bring forward scientific evidence that casts doubt on the proponent’s science. This model assumes that such groups have the capacity and opportunity to present competing science; it also assumes that the process will assess and weigh these competing scientific perspectives in a sound, fair and balanced way. The recently concluded NEB assessment in TMX underscores just how misplaced these assumptions are. At a minimum, contrary to the approach adopted by the NEB in TMX, where there is conflicting scientific evidence on key issues before the reviewing agency, federal law should require that the reviewing agency order cross examination to help ensure that the applicable federal decision-maker has a proper evidentiary record upon which to make a decision about the fate of the project. Moreover, agencies should be required to render reasons in project assessments that take into account relevant independent science.
10. Paris. Perhaps the biggest single reason why CEAA, 2012 is now completely outmoded and must be re-engineered from the ground up is Canada’s new international commitments under the Paris climate agreement. This agreement obliges Canada to do its best to help keep average global temperature increases below 1.5 degrees C. This commitment means that we have now embarked on the path of decarbonizing our economy. The implications of this are only now sinking in. Going forward, the federal government, as of January 2016, now requires all new major energy projects to be assessed for their direct and upstream GHG emission effects. For projects currently being assessed under CEAA, 2012, this new climate test is being conducted as an add-on to the EA done by the originally assigned agency. The quality of these add-on climate assessments is mixed. While some have been quite sophisticated (Woodfibre and Petronas) others (including TMX and Enbridge Line 3) have been more superficial, particularly in their treatment of upstream GHG impacts. If we are to chart a realistic path towards complying with our Paris commitments, these analyses must become a central feature of a new generation federal EA law, and be carried out by credible and independent scientists.

There are many more reasons why it is necessary to re-engineer our federal environmental assessment law from the ground up. Among them is the need to make room for new ideas, perspectives and processes that can bring Canadians together. CEAA, 2012 did just the opposite. Paradoxically, however, the discontent and appetite for change that the CEAA, 2012 reforms have generated may well have created precisely the right conditions for the once-in-a-generation law-making opportunity that lies ahead.

10 Reasons #Ottawa Should Rebuild Our #Environmental #Assessment Law from Scratch https://t.co/qhToexSlQ9 … #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/r6yAeswgEx

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 18, 2016

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.

This article originally appeared on the Dogwood Initiative website.

“Oil to tidewater.”

It’s an industry mantra happily adopted by politicians — and even some environmentalists. But ask yourself this: what happens when you pump more product into an oversupplied market? Answer: the price goes down.

Who benefits from cheaper crude oil? First, the customers — like China’s state-run heavy oil refineries. And later, competitors with lower overhead, like Saudi Arabia.

You’ve probably heard these twin arguments before:

1. Canada’s oil would fetch ‘global prices,’ if only it could access ‘tidewater.’
2. If we approve pipelines to the coast, the ensuing bonanza will make us all rich.

Let’s address each of these political talking points in turn.

What’s the ‘Global Price?’

The first thing to remember is that pipelines don’t magically add value to crude oil. What they do is reduce transportation costs from point A to point B, allowing the seller to pocket a few extra dollars per barrel.

The real problem for Canadian oilsands producers is that prices all over the world are low. If oil is selling for $45 and it costs you $46 to dig up a barrel of oil, no pipeline can fix that.

Worse, we’re talking about heavy oilsands bitumen, which is worth even less than the global “price of oil” you see quoted in the newspaper.

That’s because oilsands crude is heavy, sticky and high in sulfur, which means you need more lube to get it through pipelines and special refineries to turn it into gasoline.

Most refineries in Canada are not set up to chew through heavy oilsands bitumen. It would be like trying to fuel up your grocery getter with creosote: bad idea. So we export this low-value crude, mostly to the United States, while importing lighter crude and fuel products.

For a real comparison, we have to look at another sea-traded heavy crude. Mexico has a blend comparable to oilsands bitumen called “Maya.” The Alberta finance department tracks the average price spread between the two in a graph they update every month.

Canada is the blue line. We’re chasing the green line:

What would happen if oilsands producers hit their expansion targets, and put all that heavy crude on tankers?

The current oil price slump, which you can see started in summer 2014, was triggered by an oversupply of global markets. Oil producers were pumping out about two millionbarrels per day more than people needed.

Hang on. Enbridge Northern Gateway is designed to carry 525,000 barrels per day. Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion would carry 890,000. And Energy East would carry a whopping 1.1 million barrels per day.

“We’re in favour of all pipelines, to be honest,” Alberta energy minister Marg McCuaig-Boyd told the Edmonton Journal in April. “We see the need for more than one pipeline, and what helps one will help another.”

If the Alberta government could wave its magic pipeline wand and build all three of these projects, 2.5 million barrels of heavy crude would flood overseas refineries. With demand growth slowing, this would put downward pressure on prices.

Who Would Benefit?

Subtract the corporate welfare our governments give to oil companies, the billions in damage caused by climate change and the public cost of oil spills. Imagine for a minute the oil companies get their way and sell a whole bunch of crude in Asia at rock-bottom prices. Who benefits?

Not British Columbians, that’s for sure. We get no royalties and not even a guarantee of temporary construction jobs.

The federal government might at least break even, by collecting more income tax from oil workers.

The Alberta government has given itself no other choice. With no sales tax and an electorate hostile to tax in general, Albertan politicians depend on whatever oil royalties they can get to pay for social services.

The real winners would be the state-owned refineries in China, which would get a reliable supply of cheap feedstock. That’s why the government in Beijing has been pushing for these pipelines for 10 long years. And sourcing that crude from Canada would come with a strategic geopolitical bonus.

Dire Straits

With 21.1 million passenger vehicles sold last year and the world’s largest active military, China goes through a lot of oil: 11 million barrels a day.

The majority of that is imported through two geographic choke points: the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca. That makes China’s rulers nervous, which is why they’re expanding overland oil and gas pipelines — and looking to Canada as a future supplier.

U.S. Department of Defense

We could help ease China’s reliance on those contested shipping lanes, but it appears increasingly doubtful prices will climb again to the levels that had oil producers rubbing their hands at the prospect of West Coast exports.

In 2012, the pro-pipeline Fraser Institute predicted the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline would allow oil producers to make an extra $2.50 more per barrel  than if they sold in the U.S. Yes, that’s the pot of gold at the end of the “tidewater” rainbow: a toonie and two quarters per barrel.

Since then the pace of growth in China has slowed while global oil supply has expanded — thanks in part to fracking technology. More worrisome, from the perspective of Canadian oil companies, is the strategic shift by Saudi Arabia.

The End of the Oil Age

“The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.” That prophecy came from the Saudi oil minister, Sheikh Zaki Yamani, in 1973.

In February 2016, Yamani’s successor took the idea a step further. Ali al-Naimi told a crowd of oil executives in Texas why, despite low prices, his country refused to turn off the taps: “We’re going to let everybody compete.” Addressing investors in high-cost deposits like the oilsands, al-Naimi said “inefficient, uneconomic producers will have to get out.”

The Saudi regime slaughters its own citizens and harbours religious extremists. It is, by all metrics, repressive, brutal and corrupt. But when it comes to the realpolitik of oil markets, the Saudis have an advantage. They can pump it out of the ground cheaper than anyone else.

With climate treaties coming and electric transport set to cut into oil demand, the Kingdom is not counting on the return of $100 prices. Instead, it’s planning to crank up production even further, to wring every last drop out of the sand before the rest gets locked underground forever.

What’s becoming clear is that Canada is pursuing the same strategy, despite having a product that costs more to dig up and sells for less.

Under relentless pressure from oil lobbyists, politicians of all ideological stripes have accepted the industry’s logic: just pump more crude and pray for higher prices.

Let’s get real. These pipelines are not nation-building projects. They are catheters designed to drain a giant pool of carbon as cheaply as possible, so oilsands companies can keep the lights on for a few more years.

The irony is that flooding the market with cheap crude would make it less likely for prices to recover. That’s fine for the Saudis, who are happy to compete in a low-price environment. But it’s a poor long-term strategy for Canadians.

Approving Enbridge or Kinder Morgan’s oil tanker terminals will lay the path for a furious final expansion of the oilsands, before creditors stop lending money and the heavy-oil producers start going bankrupt.

We can’t change the end-times mindset of the global oil industry. But we can give our politicians a reality check.

For more on a provincial vote on oil tankers visit LetBCvote.ca.

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 province of British Columbia and Enbridge Northern Gateway are being ordered to pay $230,000 in court costs to both the Gitga’at First Nation and Coastal First Nations after a January 2016 ruling found both parties failed to fulfill a legal obligation to consult with First Nations on the Northern Gateway pipeline.

The B.C. Supreme Court found the province contravened consultation rules in 2010 when it signed an equivalency agreement that granted environmental decision-making authority for the pipeline to the federal government. 

The January ruling was seen as a major vindication for coastal First Nations who felt the province failed to live up to its continual promise to work with and consult with First Nations communities along the pipeline route.

The awarded court costs have added to that feeling.

“We are very pleased with the decision,” Coastal First Nations Chair Kelly Russ said. “The decision is a victory for the tireless work of our leaders and our Gitga’at community in the fight to protect the waters, lands and resources in the Great Bear Rainforest.”

Madam Justice Koenigsberg, who delivered the ruling, said court costs were awarded to the groups after finding the case met a public interest test. Koenigsberg said the subject matter of the case was “truly exceptional” and was of “significant and widespread societal impact.”

“This ruling is a win for the Gitga’at Nation and all First Nations who are directly impacted by resource extraction and transportation proposals,” Arnold Clifton, Chief Councillor of the Gitga’at First Nation said.

“It’s also a message to project proponents that consultation must be between the Crown and a First Nation and that duty to consult and protect cannot be transferred to third party interest groups.”

Last month the province ordered Enbridge to seek a provincial environmental assessment certificate. The B.C. Environmental Assessment Office said it will use an environmental assessment conducted by the National Energy Board in its provincial environmental review, but that consultation with First Nations must begin from square one.

Enbridge received conditional approval for the pipeline project in 2014. That approval will expire if the company does not begin construction by December 31, 2016.

Last week Enbridge asked the National Energy Board for a three-year extension to that permit.

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.

Enbridge will have to secure an environmental assessment certificate from the B.C. government if it wants to proceed with its Northern Gateway oil pipeline according to an order issued by B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Office on Friday.   Early on in the Northern Gateway process, the B.C. government signed an “equivalency agreement” with the federal government, giving Ottawa the responsibility for the environmental assessment.   However, a Supreme Court of B.C. decision this January found that the B.C. government acted improperly and that the province must still make its own decision about issuing an environmental assessment certificate.

In a letter to Enbridge posted last week, B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Office states that it will accept the National Energy Board’s (NEB) joint review panel report as the assessment report, but it will carry out its own consultation with Aboriginal groups — if and when Enbridge indicates it’s ready to proceed (it’s clear Enbridge must make a move here).

“The big open questions are what does consultation look like and how will that impact their decision?” said Eugene Kung, staff counsel at West Coast Environmental Law. “Are they just going through the motions to issue a certificate?”   The B.C. government formally opposed the project in its final argument to the NEB panel.   “How do they incorporate their own previously stated opposition to the project?” Kung asked. “It seems hard to imagine them issuing a certificate given their previously stated positions.”   The province’s letter states that no decisions will be made on any permit applications related to the construction or operation of Northern Gateway until a decision on the environmental assessment certificate has been made.   That calls into question the project’s existing federal environmental assessment certificate, which has several conditions attached including one that stipulates that Northern Gateway must have proven firm supply contracts accounting for 60 per cent of capacity by July 1, 2016. Further to that, Northern Gateway’s certificate will expire by December 31, 2016, unless it begins construction.     While the Enbridge Northern Gateway project is widely seen as dead — with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promising to legislate a ban on oil tankers on B.C.’s north coast — the latest news raises questions about Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline proposal.   The province of B.C. signed the same equivalency agreement for the review of Trans Mountain, but will now need to make a decision on issuing its own provincial environmental assessment certificate and needs to consult with affected First Nations on that decision.   The province also opposed the Trans Mountain project in its final argument to the joint review panel.   Enbridge Northern Gateway would transport 525,000 barrels of bitumen per day from Alberta to Kitimat, where it would be loaded onto tankers bound for Asia.   Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion would triple the capacity of that pipeline, allowing for the transport of 590,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta to Burnaby, where it would also be loaded onto tankers bound primarily for Asia.

Image: Mack Male/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.

This is a guest post by David Suzuki.

With the December Paris climate agreement, leaders and experts from around the world showed they overwhelmingly accept that human-caused climate change is real and, because the world has continued to increase fossil fuel use, the need to curb and reduce emissions is urgent.

In light of this, I don’t get the current brouhaha over the Trans Mountain, Keystone XL, Northern Gateway or the Energy East pipelines. Why are politicians contemplating spending billions on pipelines when the Paris commitment means 75 to 80 per cent of known fossil fuel deposits must be left in the ground?

Didn’t our prime minister, with provincial and territorial premiers, mayors and representatives from non-profit organizations, parade before the media to announce Canada now takes climate change seriously? I joined millions of Canadians who felt an oppressive weight had lifted and cheered mightily to hear that our country committed to keeping emissions at levels that would ensure the world doesn’t heat by more than 1.5 C by the end of this century. With the global average temperature already one degree higher than pre-industrial levels, a half a degree more leaves no room for business as usual.

The former government’s drive to make Canada a petro superpower distorted the Canadian economy into greater fossil fuel dependence, with catastrophic consequences when the price of oil collapsed. The lesson should have been learned long ago: Heavy dependence on a single revenue stream like fish, trees, wheat, minerals or even one factory or industry is hazardous if that source suffers a reversal in fortune like resource depletion, unanticipated cost fluctuations or stiff competition.

Coal stocks have already sunk to the floor, so why is there talk of building or expanding coal terminals? Low oil prices have pushed oilsands bitumen toward unprofitability, so why the discussion of expanding this carbon-intensive industry? Fracking is unbelievably unsustainable because of the immense amounts of water used in the process, seismic destabilization and escape of hyper-warming methane from wells. Exploration for new oil deposits — especially in hazardous areas like the deep ocean, the Arctic and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other critical wildlife habitat — should stop immediately.

Pipeline arguments are especially discouraging, with people claiming Quebec is working against the interests of Alberta and Canada because the leadership of the Montreal Metropolitan Community — representing 82 municipalities and nearly half the province’s population — voted overwhelmingly to reject the proposed Energy East pipeline project, which would carry 1.1 million barrels of oilsands bitumen and other oil products from Alberta to refineries and ports in the east. Some have thrown out the anti-democratic and, frankly, anti-Canadian notion that because Quebec has received equalization payments it should shut up about pipeline projects.

National unity is about steering Canada onto a sustainable track and looking out for the interests of all Canadians. Continuing to build fossil fuel infrastructure and locking ourselves into a future of increasing global warming isn’t the way to go about it. Shifting to a 21st century clean-energy economy would create more jobs, unity and prosperity — across Canada and not just in one region — than continuing to rely on a polluting, climate-altering sunset industry. Leaders in Quebec should be commended for taking a strong stand for the environment and climate — and for all of Canada.

The Paris target means we have to rethink everything. Energy is at the heart of modern society, but we have to get off fossil fuels. Should we expand airports when aircraft are the most energy-intensive ways to travel? Why build massive bridges and tunnels when we must transport goods and people differently? The global system in which food travels thousands of kilometres from where it’s grown to where it’s consumed makes no sense in a carbon-constrained world. Agriculture must become more local, so the Peace Valley must serve as the breadbasket of the North rather than a flooded area behind a dam.

The urgency of the need for change demands that we rethink our entire energy potential and the way we live. It makes no sense to continue acting as if we’ve got all the time in the world to get off the path that created the crisis in the first place. That’s the challenge, and for our politicians, it’s a huge task as well as a great opportunity.

David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation.

Photo: Shannon Ramos via Flickr

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

The provincial government did not fulfill its legal obligation to consult with First Nations on the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The case, brought forward by the Gitga’at and other coastal First Nations, argued the province erred when it handed over decision-making authority for the project to the federal government under a provincial-federal Joint Review Process managed by the federal National Energy Board.

B.C. granted Ottawa authority over the project’s environmental review in a 2010 equivalency agreement. That agreement, however, did not release the province from the legal duty to consult First Nations, the B.C. Supreme Court found.

“It’s a very significant ruling,” Elin Sigurdson, lawyer with JFK Law, said. “The coastal First Nations and Gita’at were very successful in the application to quash the equivalency agreement which means the province now has to consult with First Nations that will be affected by matters in the provincial jurisdiction and has to conduct a new environmental assessment for the project.”

In December 2013 a Joint Review Panel recommended the federal government approve the pipeline, slated to carry 525,000 barrels of oilsands crude to the B.C coast each day, subject to 209 conditions, one of which was “consultation with aboriginal communities.” Federal cabinet approved the pipeline in June 2014.

Greg Rickford, former Natural Resources Minister under the Harper government, suggested at the time that the duty to consult with First Nations resided with Enbridge.

"The proponent clearly has more work to do in order to fulfil the public commitment it has made to engage with aboriginal groups and local communities along the route," Rickford said in a government press release.

“The duty to consult as a constitutional obligation does not lie with Enbridge,” Sigurdson said. “The Crown always has to ensure that the duty to consult was discharged in a meaningful way.”

Heiltsuk Chief Marilyn Slett said the ruling is a “great victory.”

“We’re feeling really good about it,” she said. “We’re just so committed to our community and protecting our coast.”

“It’s affirming to know that there’s a responsibility to come back and talk to the people these kinds of projects will affect.”

Slett said the government acknowledged the need to address First Nations concerns in Premier Christy Clark’s five conditions for oil pipelines.

“In terms of the government saying they are doing what they are supposed to be doing, well today shows [Christy Clark] has to be held accountable, to consult with us.”

“We stand our ground, around protecting who we are as people and our communities. This strengthens all of us,” she said. “We’re in it together.”

Susan Smitten, executive director of RAVEN Trust, said the ruling will mean major delays for a project that is already mired in uncertainty.

“All the coastal nations that will be affected by components within B.C. jurisdiction will have to be consulted, which will take time,” she said. “An environmental assessment would also take time.”

She added her organization is delighted with today’s win. “This is what we live for: to see Indigenous Peoples successfully see their issues through the courts.”

In September the B.C. Environmental Appeal Board ruled B.C. handed out scientifically flawed long-term water withdrawal permits to Nexen, a company with fracking operations in northern B.C.

The board found B.C. failed to properly consult with the Fort Nelson First Nation when issuing the water licence and ordered its cancellation, effectively immediately. The board also ruled B.C. failed to operate in good faith with the Fort Nelson First Nation and that the province’s consultation process was “seriously flawed.”

According to Sigurdson, the province may need to change its approach to consultation.

The province should have ensured the equivalency agreement met the needs of First Nations that stood to be affected by the Northern Gateway pipeline, she said.

“They were supposed to have consulted and it was not honourable for them to not do that.”

Consultation “has to mean something,” Sigurdson said. “It’s an obligation grounded in a solemn constitutional promise to preserve and protect the aboriginal rights of First Nations in Canada.”

“It can’t just be window dressing,” she said.

“It has to be real and meaningful dialogue. You can’t just have pretend consultation stand in the place of performing the actual obligation of giving information, hearing concerns and responding to them — actually engaging the concerns. “

“If you’re not doing that, you’re not doing the consultation required.”

Image: Mandy Nahanee, member of the Squamish First Nation at a rally, June 2014. 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.