BC Hydro officials and members of Premier Christy Clark and Energy Minister Bill Bennett’s offices were all involved in a coordinated attempt to discredit DeSmog Canada’s reporting on the $8.8 billion Site C hydroelectric dam, according to documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests.

The documents detail a flurry of e-mails following a DeSmog Canada story that quoted former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen saying that Site C was proceeding without due diligence, would lead to escalating hydro rate increases and was “scheduled to become a big white elephant,” a story later referenced by the New York Times.

BC Hydro officials were concerned that major B.C. media would pick up on the DeSmog Canada story, based largely on a BC Hydro progress report to the B.C. Utilities Commission. That report noted that Site C had fallen behind on four out of seven key milestones and outlined project risks and reasons why Site C had spent more money than anticipated by the end of last March, while saying that the project’s overall forecast still remained on track.

“This is expected to generate media interest,” Craig Fitzsimmons, BC Hydro’s manager of communications and issues management for Site C, flagged in e-mails to the Premier’s office and Bennett’s office, informing them that numbers in the article came from the Crown corporation’s own report.

The Premier’s office directed BC Hydro to respond to the article immediately even though it was the start of the Canada Day long weekend, a sign of the top priority Clark’s team has placed on controlling the story line on the Site C dam, the most expensive publicly funded project in B.C.’s history.

Two days later, internal Hydro e-mails show, BC Hydro CEO Jessica McDonald took aim at an opinion editorial that had been published more than one month earlier in the print and online editions of The Province newspaper.

The opinion piece was based entirely on a DeSmog Canada story published the previous day about BC Hydro’s ongoing civil law suit against some of the Peace Valley farmers and First Nations members involved in the Rocky Mountain Fort winter camp, which delayed Site C clear-cutting of a B.C. heritage site for two months. The piece quoted the head of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association who called the lawsuit, which seeks financial damages for BC Hydro from individuals, a matter of “grave concern” because of its potential to curtail freedom of expression.  

McDonald, saying erroneously that the opinion piece had changed a month after publication and now contained “commentary that is even more misleading than before” asked top staff if it were possible to “dust off” a one-month-old unpublished BC Hydro letter to the editor of The Province and “create a new piece that hits back.”

“I feel this is really important as we head into the Paddle for the Peace which is focused on the Boon’s property next weekend and will be very focused on stopping the federal authorizations based on our supposed unfairness,” wrote McDonald.

McDonald was referring to Ken and Arlene Boon, two of the Peace Valley farmers named in Hydro’s civil law suit, whose third-generation farmland and home were expropriated by BC Hydro in December for a Site C highway relocation. At the time the e-mail was written, BC Hydro was waiting for federal authorizations for Site C that were subsequently granted by the Trudeau government, even though First Nations leaders had requested that the permits be withheld.

According to the internal Hydro e-mails, McDonald said she wanted a statement drafted to say that information in the opinion piece was “inaccurate.” She also wanted her staff to make sure BC Hydro was “closely monitoring” some DeSmog Canada articles and to flag when there were updates.

McDonald wanted it to be made clear that BC Hydro supports freedom of expression and is taking legal action only to prevent people from physically blockading work on the project. But the documents also suggest that BC Hydro wanted to do more.

“I talked to Jessica and she would like to hit Sarah Cox hard for never contacting us for an interview on the issue, continuing to ignore our input, and then ramping up the rhetoric,” said an e-mail written by Danielle Van Huizen, a senior business advisor in McDonald’s office.

That prompted a quick reply from BC Hydro’s Site C spokesperson Dave Conway, who informed colleagues that Hydro had indeed been contacted for comment three times over a five-day period, by e-mail and phone.

Screenshots of documents obtained through Freedom of Information legislation indicating BC Hydro President Jessica McDonald would like to hit DeSmog Canada contributor Sarah Cox "hard" for her writing on Site C. 

“We will have to be careful what we write and be sure legal has a look at it,” advised Van Huizen in another email.

Two days later, BC Hydro issued a news release, approved by Bennett’s office and including text from a letter to the editor approved by the Premier’s office, saying there were “inaccuracies” in the five-week old Province opinion piece, and also saying that the piece had been “posted” more than one month later than its actual publication date.

That followed closely on the heels of a BC Hydro news release, approved by both the Premier’s office and Bennett’s office, which attempted to discredit DeSmog Canada’s story about Hydro’s progress report to the utilities commission, saying it contained “inaccurate statements.” 

BC Hydro President Jessica McDonald would like to hit DeSmog contributor Sarah Cox “hard” for her writing on #SiteC https://t.co/4GNzCYzNyG

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) January 17, 2017

At that point, DeSmog Canada sent a registered letter to Simi Heer, Hydro’s manager of media relations and issues management, asking BC Hydro to identify any factual inaccuracies so that they could be corrected. Heer, who later left BC Hydro, did not respond to the letter, or to e-mails and a phone call. BC Hydro has never contacted DeSmog Canada directly to request any story corrections.

Dozens of pages were redacted from BC Hydro’s 1,600-page FOI response on the grounds that they “were penned for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice.” Other pages, including parts of e-mails written by McDonald about the opinion piece, were redacted on the grounds that releasing the full e-mails would constitute an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy.

The FOI documents also reveal how top officials in the Premier’s office and Bennet’s office control other media relations regarding the Site C dam, as reported by the Vancouver Sun last week based on a DeSmog Canada FOI to the Premier’s office that is now publicly available.

Construction of the Site C Dam on the Peace River. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog Canada

The Premier’s office and Bennett’s office directed the timing of various Site C announcements, including an announcement about the completion of a temporary bridge across the Peace River, which Bennett did not want BC Hydro to make too close to an April increase in hydro rates.

Both offices were also involved in the timing for an announcement about the completion of the $470 million lodge for Site C construction workers, which cost BC Hydro customers almost as much as Clark’s pre-election pledge to spend $500 million on affordable housing projects to help alleviate the Lower Mainland’s housing crisis.

The offices also vetted a BC Hydro press release, which included quotes from Clark and Bennett, announcing that a $470 million contract had been awarded to Voith Hydro Inc. to supply turbines and generators for the Site C dam.

According to Luc Bernier, a Canadian expert in Crown corporations, BC Hydro should have more independence from the government to ensure that sound decisions are being made.

Bernier said it is not unusual for governments to be kept apprised of developments on large publicly funded projects like Site C, and to control and to supervise these projects to a certain extent, because they are highly visible.

But directing day-to-day communications can lead to decisions being made for political reasons and not because they are in the best interests of the Crown corporation, said Bernier, who holds the Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management at the University of Ottawa and is the former head of the Institute of Public Administration of Canada. 

“For the proper functioning of Crown corporations it should be more independent. We do put these organizations further away from politics to make sure the main reason to exist — in this case to produce electricity — is not done for political reasons.”

Public sector management expert David Zussman said the question of how independent Crown corporations should be from governments is a contentious issue right across the country.

“In recent years in particular there’s been a distancing of the Crowns from the government,” said Zussman, a former dean of the University of Ottawa’s School of Management and previous commissioner of the Public Service Commission of Canada.

“The trends today I would say are for greater independence of Crown corporations.” Hydro Quebec, for instance, is a far more independent entity than it was 30 years ago and Zussman said to the best of his knowledge it has “almost nothing to do with the government” today.

To achieve good governance, Zussman said Crown corporations “should operate independently from government on a day to day basis,” adding that what exactly that means is open to interpretation.

The FOI request to the Premier’s office also asked for e-mails and documents related to Site C’s most recent budget and timeline, but that information was not forthcoming. Fourteen pages of the response were redacted.

Screenshot of a consent order compelling BC Hydro to release documents requested by DeSmog Canada via Freedom of Information legislation.

One internal Hydro e-mail from Michael Savidant, BC Hydro’s Site C commercial manager, addressed Site C project risks outlined in Hydro’s progress report and referenced in DeSmog Canada’s story. But Savidant’s points were not included in Hydro’s news release about the story or in BC Hydro’s list of key messages, vetted by Bennett’s office, for any other media inquiries about the report.

“On the potential for cost overruns — yes if those things happen there will be cost increases,” Savidant wrote to Fitzsimmons and Chris Sandve, Bennett’s former chief of staff who is now BC Hydro’s director of policy and reporting.

“Those risks exist on any project. We disclosed them in the Business Case and at the JRP [Joint Review Panel hearings on Site C]. The key is to highlight that we have contingency to cover most items, and a project reserve to cover the rest.”

The internal e-mails also detail BC Hydro’s concerted efforts to craft messaging for any members of the media who expressed interest in following several DeSmog Canada stories about Site C, including a story about Hydro’s $175 million plan to truck at-risk bull trout upstream past the dam for 100 years when up to 40 percent of the fish are expected to perish in the dam’s turbines while migrating back downstream.

One internal Hydro document with a weekly Site C public affairs summary listed Freedom of Information requests as one of the “on-going risks” to the project. “The Project continues to get a lot of Freedom-of-Information Requests related to various issues. The FOIs can be expected to end up in the public realm, usually through media reports,” the document noted.

BC Hydro only responded to the FOI request, made last August, after a complaint was filed with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) when the Crown Corporation missed a legal deadline for delivering the documents.

The commissioner issued a consent order, compelling BC Hydro to release the information.

Image: Premier Christy Clark, flanked by BC Hydro President Jessica McDonald and Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett, at a Site C contract announcement. Photo: Province of B.C. via Flickr  (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

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 broad coalition of organizations from across Canada wants Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to halt construction of the Site C dam by refusing to issue federal permits needed for construction of the $9-billion project that will flood 23,000 hectares of land along 107-kilometres of the Peace River Valley.   A letter to Trudeau, signed by 25 organizations ranging from Amnesty International and the Council of Canadians to the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the David Suzuki Foundation, asks that the new Liberal government live up to its promises of a new relationship with First Nations.   “Our organizations are profoundly concerned that construction of the Site C dam is being pushed ahead despite the conclusion of a joint federal-provincial environmental assessment that it would severely and permanently undermine indigenous peoples’ use of the land; harm rare plants and other biodiversity; make fishing unsafe for at least a generation and submerge burial grounds and other crucial cultural and historical sites,” an open letter released by the coalition says.   The letter urges Trudeau to rescind all permits and to re-examine the previous government’s approval of the dam, which was given despite Treaty 8 claims that it violated treaty rights.   “The people of Treaty 8 have said no to Site C. Any government that is truly committed to reconciliation with indigenous peoples, to respecting human rights and to promoting truly clean energy must listen,” the letter says.

The provincial government is largely responsible for Site C permits, but the federal government must issue permits in areas of federal jurisdiction such as fisheries, transport and wildlife. 

BC Hydro did not respond to questions about outstanding permits in time for publication.   During recent climate change negotiations in Paris, most Canadians were delighted that Trudeau linked climate change with human rights, Joe Foy, from the Wilderness Committee, said.   “The Peace River is where the rubber meets the road. This is clearly against what this government and this country stands for,” Foy said.   “The federal government needs to go on record now that, at every step of the way, they will resist this.”   Candace Batycki, spokesperson for the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, one of the organizations that signed the letter, said Site C is not just another resource development project.   “The Site C dam is one of the largest resource development projects underway in Canada and its impact on the environment and local First Nations will be severe,” she said.   First Nations from the Peace River area have already asked the federal government to step into the controversy and AFN National Chief Perry Bellegarde is among those who have called for a second look at the project.   Chief Roland Willson of West Moberly First Nations said there has not yet been an opportunity to meet with members of the Trudeau cabinet, but letters have gone to all ministers.   “I have to believe in my heart they are seriously considering it. They have to understand the process was severely flawed,” he said.   “They can’t talk about a new enhanced relationship and start stabbing their fingers in our eyes…There’s no doubt it’s an infringement of treaty rights,” he said.   Trudeau should understand that there are ways to produce the power, such as run-of-river hydro projects, that do not destroy the valley, Willson said.   So far, an old-growth forest has been destroyed and there are minor earthworks, “but there is nothing irreversible,” he said.   Site C still faces three legal challenges and BC Hydro has applied for an injunction against First Nations members camping at historic Rocky Mountain Fort.   BC Hydro claims the protesters have been preventing contractors from completing their work on the south bank of the Peace River since January 4 and the petition will be heard in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver on February 22.   “We will still be at the camp, whatever courses are followed. This is Treaty 8 territory,” said Helen Knott of Prophet River First Nation, who is among the Treaty 8 Stewards of the Land women who have been taking shifts camping at the fort.   The group has asked Trudeau and Premier Christy Clark to suspend all approvals for logging, road building and land clearing in the Peace River Valley until all the court cases have been heard, there has been a federal review of the infringement of treaty rights and an independent review of the project by the B.C. Utilities Commission.   Knott said she is willing to be arrested, but hopes it will not be necessary as she is heading to Toronto and Ottawa next week to meet with federal government representatives.   No meetings have yet been organized, she said.   “But we want to make every effort to do this the right way. I do have some sort of hope that something magical will happen,” she said.

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

Image: Sign on the banks of the Peace River via the ECOReport.

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.

As 2015 drew to a close and families across the country planned for New Year festivities, Sonia Furstenau was busy trying to figure out how many officials, journalists and photographers she could get up in a helicopter on January 6 if she divided the day into 30-minute departure times.

Furstenau, an elected representative for the Cowichan Valley Regional District, is a resident of Shawnigan Lake where a protracted battle to keep contaminated waste out of a local watershed is gaining new momentum.

Along with other members of the Shawnigan community and the Save Shawnigan Water campaign, Furstenau arranged to get elected representatives and media up in the air above Shawnigan Lake and, a mere five kilometres uphill, above a nearby contaminated waste site.

If it was going to take a day’s worth of helicopter rides to generate media attention for her community’s plight, then, well, “get to the choppa.”

Four years ago, Furstenau agreed to fill a one-year teaching position at Dwight School Canada, a prestigious international boarding school located on a sprawling 23-acre campus on Shawnigan Lake. The alpine lake setting and small, friendly community won her family over immediately.

“We moved here by accident,” Furstenau said with a laugh, adding her family agreed to give the school one year before returning to Victoria. During that first year in Shawnigan, however, her blended family of seven began to put down permanent roots.

“We fell in love with the lake, with the community and the Cowichan Valley.”

But as Furstenau was eyeing Shawnigan as the perfect place to settle down and raise her children, the B.C. government and waste disposal company South Island Aggregates (SIA) had identified the area for something entirely different.

Shawnigan Lake. Photo: Jayce Hawkins/DeSmog Canada.

In 2012, SIA, owned by parent company Cobble Hill Holdings Ltd., applied for a permit to dump 100,000 tonnes of contaminated waste soil into a local quarry located in the headwaters of Shawnigan Lake, a local source of drinking water for the 7,500 permanent residents of Shawnigan Lake. During the summer months, that number balloons to 12,000.

The B.C. Ministry of Environment granted SIA a 50-year permit, allowing the company to dump a total of 5 million tonnes of industrial waste containing furans, dioxins, chlorinated hydrocarbons, glycols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, toluene, xylene and other materials know to cause cancer, brain damage, and birth defects in humans.

The landfill site is flanked by streams that flow downhill into the Shawnigan Lake watershed.

SIA maintains the site is cradled in a 75-foot layer of nearly impermeable bedrock. The company estimates it would take approximately 103,000 years for contaminants to reach local groundwater and migrate into Shawnigan Lake.

South Island Aggregates' landfill site. Photo: Jayce Hawkins/DeSmog Canada.

SIA based these estimates on the geotechnical work of Active Earth Engineering. In the summer of 2015 a document was anonymously provided to the Shawnigan Residents Association that showed SIA and Active Earth Engineering signed a profit sharing contract for the 50-year lifespan of the landfill. SIA maintains the agreement was never acted on and eventually abandoned.

Yet the community is arguing the project review process was corrupted and that the B.C. Ministry of Environment, as well as the Environmental Appeal Board through which the community sought to have the permit pulled, relied too heavily on the expertise of Active Earth — a company they say had a clear conflict of interest.

A judicial review in the B.C. Supreme Court began on Monday, January 11 in Victoria. The review is expected to take two weeks to complete.

“It doesn’t take long to understand why this community is up in arms and so determined to fight what is going on here,” Furstenau said.

“Putting a contaminated landfill on a mountain at the headwaters of your drinking watershed above the lake that is the heart of your community is insanity. We do not accept this and we never will.”

Up on the mountain during the January 6 protest Furstenau’s sentiment seemed widespread.

On that cold morning nearly 500 residents gathered outside the gates of SIA’s private facility to prevent the latest shipment of contaminated soil from reaching the landfill site. Protesters held signs that read “pull the permit” and “Save Shawnigan Water” and children built snowmen in front of a line of blockaded work trucks.

“I think almost anyone can tell you this doesn’t on the surface seem to be logical,” Steve Housser, Shawnigan resident and former CBC journalist, said outside the landfill site.

Protesters at the landfill site, January 6, 2015. Photo: Jayce Hawkins/DeSmog Canada.

“The government says the science says it’s okay,” Housser said. “Unfortunately that science was bought and paid for by SIA.”

Housser who ran as a BC Liberal candidate in the Cowichan Valley riding during the last provincial election said revelations about the profit-sharing agreement between SIA and Active Earth engineers “completely undercuts their independence, their professional integrity and almost makes a mockery of the word science.”

He added the community does not feel it had a legitimate role to play in the decision-making process.

A "Save Our Shawnigan Water" sign sits on the site of the contaminated soil landfill, January 6. Photo: Jayce Hawkins/DeSmog Canada.

“Any say we had was ignored,” Housser said, adding the community has sent in a 15,500 signature petition, demonstrated at the legislature and held multiple rallies. “I don’t know what the hesitation is to stop this thing.”

“If it can be done to us, if somebody thinks they can dump toxic, contaminated waste into a watershed in Shawnigan, who’s next?” he said.

Dwight Canada School student Dimitri Monti-Browning also attended the protest along with a handful of classmates.

“I feel that a lot of the Shawnigan Lake community and a lot of people in B.C. and on Vancouver Island really care about Shawnigan Lake and don’t want to ruin this beautiful place,” Monti-Browning said.

He added the night before the event he was with his grandmother, who owns a home on Shawnigan Lake Road. “I went over to her house last night and she was crying because we don’t want to lose our water and as I said before this beautiful place.”

“We want to save our water,” he said.

Dwight School Canada student Dimitri Monti-Browning, centre right, at the protest with classmates. Photo: Jayce Hawkins/DeSmog Canada.

Calvin Cook, president of the Shawnigan Resident’s Association, said the community has a lot of legitimate concerns about the risk of seismic events, like the December 29 4.7 magnitude earthquake that shook houses in Victoria, or what happens over time when the plastic liners used in the pits begin to break down.

“The quarry itself is 15 per cent dug. Still 85 per cent remains to be blasted,” Cook said. “We’ll have containment cells next to and adjacent to an active blasting site. That is unprecedented. That has never occurred before.”

“Shawnigan Lake and its citizens are being used as a test laboratory for this facility.”

On January 6 South Island Resource Management, the company managing the disposal site since June 2015, release a statement, saying, "We are fully compliant with the Ministry of Environment Waste Discharge Permit and with the Ministry of Mines Permit.There is no quantifiable risk from the site to human health in the Shawnigan Lake watershed and we continue to hope that reasonable debate will prevail.”

In November a breach of surface runoff from the site prompted the Vancouver Island Health Authority to issue a no-used water advisory to Shawnigan lake residents. 

Cook said despite what he sees as “unacceptable risks,” years of community opposition has fallen on deaf ears.

“Our minister [Mary Polak] and our Premier have steadfastly refused to act,” he said. “All we are asking them to do is put a stay in place to prevent further contaminants being brought to this site until a complete judicial review has been heard.”

During the ongoing judicial review, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robert Sewell will hear evidence the permit holder lacks credibility and relied on faulty engineering advice. 

Cook said while that review was waiting to hit the courts in November, new contaminated industrial waste was being trucked in from Port Moody.

“When we win, the site will have to be remediated,” Cook said. “Those costs will be borne by every citizen in B.C. Why further increase those costs? Let the judicial review take place. Let all the facts be heard by a judge.”

From an ad hoc helicopter landing pad one the shore of Shawnigan Lake, Port Moody city council member, Zoe Royer said she is “very concerned” about industry from her riding shipping contaminated waste to this community.

“I’m not here representing the city of Port Moody,” Royer said. “I’m here because I’m deeply concerned about the situation in Shawnigan Lake, about the contamination that is happening in this community.”

“My heart goes out to the people in this community. This was a pristine watershed and many, many people depend on it for their drinking water and their livelihood.”

“We have to stand together and help to stop this,” Royer said before boarding the helicopter for an aerial view alongside two other Port Moody city councilors.

Georgia Collins. Photo: Jayce Hawkins/DeSmog Canada.

Shawnigan resident Georgia Collins, who lives on the lake beside the makeshift helicopter pad, said when the company first came to the community they said the landfill site would benefit everyone.

“They said it was something that would be very helpful to the community, that it would be cleaning up contaminated sites that are in the watershed already,” Collins said. “But it turns out that it’s a permit to dump 5 million tonnes of contaminated soil over 50 years and that soil can come from anywhere.”

Collins’ young son played around her legs as we spoke. “We do have elected representatives and we expect them to protect our water,” she said. “We expect them to protect our livelihoods. What we’ve seen is them constantly ignoring our community.”

She added that since 2012 the company and the provincial government tried to manage the community to limit public backlash.

“But we’re not going away.”

“It’s hard to see this going on, that this is possible in any community,” she said. “There is the beautiful silver lining that this has galvanized the people and I love the people here. They’re my community and I want to protect them.”

Collins said Environment Minister Mary Polak has the authority to place a hold on the permit at any time.

“We’re a community in unrest and we deserve to have this put on hold. We deserve to have trucks stopped while we wait for judges to make the right decision.“

Images by Jayce Hawkins for DeSmog Canada.

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.

B.C. and Alaska signed a pact Wednesday designed to give Alaskans more say on Canadian mine approvals in transboundary watersheds through a high-level joint working group.

The agreement follows an unprecedented outcry this summer from Alaskan fishing groups, U.S. politicians, aboriginal and environmental groups, worried about the effect on salmon bearing rivers of a surge of mine development in B.C.’s northwest corner.

Concerns about B.C. oversight and mining rules escalated after the Mount Polley tailings pond collapse in August that sent 24-million cubic metres of mine waste, water and silt rushing into nearby lakes and rivers. A subsequent investigation concluded the spill was largely due to an inadequately designed tailings pond.

The disaster underlined Alaskan fears that a similar incident or leaching of toxic chemicals in mines close to the border could wipe out salmon runs in rivers such as the Stikine, Unuk and Taku. Outrage intensified after the B.C. government gave the go-ahead last fall to the Red Chris mine, owned by Imperial Metals, the company that also owns Mount Polley.

There are currently 10 advanced mining projects planned for near the B.C.-Alaska border. Image: Salmon Beyond Borders.

The memorandum of understanding, signed by Premier Christy Clark and Alaska Governor Bill Walker “provides for greater involvement and collaboration on proposed mine development in either jurisdiction,” says a provincial news release.

The bilateral working group will develop a joint water quality monitoring program and create opportunities for government representatives and scientists to be involved in environmental assessments and permitting on both sides of the border.

The group, which will be overseen by Alaska Lt.-Gov. Byron Mallott and B.C. Energy Minister Bill Bennett, will also come up with a program to allow groups such as Alaskan Tribes and B.C. First Nations to provide input on transboundary developments.

“This MOU provides for more collaboration and cooperation to ensure the conservation and enhancement of our shared environment,” said Premier Clark.

Read DeSmog Canada's in-depth series on transboundary mining: Transboundary Tensions: B.C.'s New Gold Rush Stirs Controversy Downstream in Alaska

Bennett, who has made two visits to Alaska over the last year, told Canadian Press that the agreement signifies a willingness to work together and “be better neighbours in the future.”

However, the agreement has infuriated members of Salmon Beyond Borders, a coalition of sport and commercial fishermen, community leaders, business owner and Tribal and First Nations representatives who say the pact is worthless because it is non-binding.

“(It) offers no visible means of holding Canada or the mining companies accountable for mitigating our losses should accidents like the one at Mount Polley occur in the region,” said Dale Kelley, Alaska Trollers Association executive director.

Salmon Beyond Borders and many other Alaskans have been pushing for concerns about upstream mining to be referred through the Boundary Waters Treaty to the International Joint Commission.

“We are very disappointed that the Governor is apparently ignoring the near consensus here in Southeast Alaska in support of federal involvement and the IJC,” said Chris Zimmer of Rivers Without Borders.

The U.S. State Department would have to refer the matter to the IJC, but, so far, there has been little federal interest on either side of the border.

Alaskan groups are also disappointed that the agreement was signed with B.C. despite being asked during the last week for input on a draft statement on transboundary mining cooperation.

“It’s hard not to feel blindsided by this news," said Salmon Beyond Borders director Heather Hardcastle.

Like our stories? Sign up for the DeSmog Canada newsletter.

Image: Brucejack mine via Pretium Resources

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.

One month from now, arguably the most significant climate negotiations the world has ever seen will begin in Paris — and Prime Minister-designate Justin Trudeau plans on being there with a gaggle of premiers in tow, a show of Canadian representation unimaginable in previous years.

The COP21 UN-led climate summit is organized around one seemingly impossible outcome: a binding international climate agreement to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

B.C. Premier Christy Clark said she has been planning on attending the negotiations for several months. “I’ve already booked my ticket,” she said in a statement e-mailed to DeSmog Canada, adding she’s “delighted” Justin Trudeau will be in attendance.

“I’m delighted…we’ll have a real full contingent. I think almost all premiers are already planning to attend.”

Manitoba NDP Premier Greg Selinger confirmed he will attend the negotiations as well.

“Yes, I think you’re going to see a pretty good turn out this year,” he told DeSmog Canada.

Selinger added: “I just chatted with [Justin Trudeau] and I think it’s positive that Canada is going together. I think it’s good for the country and sends a positive message.” 

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley’s office also confirmed her attendance, as did the offices of Prince Edward Island Premier Wade MacLauchlan, Nunavut Premier Peter Taptuna and Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard.

Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil will send Environment Minister Andrew Younger in his stead.

“It's encouraging that the premiers seem to be interested in attending COP,” Torrance Coste, who will be attending the conference as a member of the Canadian Youth Delegation, said.

Coste added that he’s hopeful that attendance will “translate into serious commitments around carbon emissions reductions and climate action in every province.”

Trudeau Taking a Cautious Approach to Provinces and Climate

In addition to attending the climate talks, Trudeau has promised to convene the provinces within 90 days of the conference to “work together on a framework to combat climate change.”

“There is no one-size-fits-all solution,” Trudeau stated on the campaign trail.

The Liberal party has been criticized for failing to commit to specific greenhouse gas reduction targets — although the party platform does agree with the world’s top scientists and policy makers that temperatures must be kept from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius.

In the week before the election, Trudeau told the CBC he would not commit to specific emissions targets.

“Everybody has thrown out numbers and different targets, and what they’re going to do and what is going to happen,” Trudeau said.

“What we need is not ambitious political targets. What we need is an ambitious plan to reduce our emissions in the country.”

Canada’s current climate commitment, formed under the Conservative government, is to reduce emissions by 30 per cent by 2050 from 2005 levels, a target the Liberals along with climate analysts have criticized as weak and inadequate.

Critics also pointed out that Canada’s total lack of climate legislation means the country is unlikely to meet that target, even though it is much weaker than commitments made by other industrial nations.

Trudeau has promised to work with the provinces on case-by-case basis to address location-specific sources of emissions and appropriate solutions.

A New Post-Harper Era

The approach goes against the grain of the Conservative government under Stephen Harper, which was accused of taking credit at the federal level for emissions reductions achieved by the provinces.

Some provinces even expressed frustration that the federal government claimed to be consulting with the provinces in advance of last year’s climate summit in Peru when those consultations hadn’t actually taken place.

The Harper government also warned the provinces that Trudeau would impose provincial carbon taxes if they agreed to work with the Liberals. But with strong public approval of B.C.’s carbon tax and Ontario jumping on the carbon pricing bandwagon with Quebec, it’s clear that ship has already sailed.

Coste said Trudeau’s approach represents a major departure from the Harper government, “whose hostile approach on climate change was to do essentially nothing at all.”

He added he does have some concern, however, that a lack of consensus between the provinces might act as an impediment to Canada’s meaningful participation on the international stage.

“Will the premiers of, say, B.C., Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia all be willing to commit to the same level of climate action? And if they did, would it be the serious commitments that climate scientists around the world are calling for? A big concern is that the new Prime Minister would use a lack of consensus among the premiers as an excuse to not sign a legally binding agreement in Paris.”

"Trudeau has an opportunity in Paris to remake Canada's reputation as an international leader," Tzeporah Berman, B.C. environmentalist and adjunct professor in the faculty of Environmental Studies at York University, told DeSmog Canada.

But to do so will require strong federal leadership, Berman said. "The essential question is whether [the new federal government] will step up to this challenge or leave the Provinces to do all the heavy lifting."

Berman said although it is clear Justin Trudeau will be a very different Prime Minister than Stephen Harper, more than strong provincial policies are needed to reset the stage.

"Our new federal government must set a level of ambition and a floor for the carbon price that ensures we have a coherent National climate plan that Canadians can be proud of in Paris and beyond."

Premiers Optimistic About Working with Ottawa on Climate

The provinces, for their part, seem excited at the prospect of fresh blood in Ottawa.

Premier Clark indicated she supports Trudeau’s province-by-province approach.

“I think that the federal government is really wise to take the course of allowing provinces to lead when it comes to addressing climate change,” Clark said. “Each of us has such different approaches.”

“I think what the federal government is wisest to do, and I think this is what Prime Minister Trudeau was talking about, is making sure the provinces are as coordinated as we can be, make sure that every province is doing everything that they can to lead, but not to start to fiddle with real success that we've seen in some places.”

“Climate change can be a source of innovation,” Premier Selinger told DeSmog Canada. “I think we’re all going to have to work together and I think we’ll see a variety of approaches across Canada.”

Selinger added he is looking forward to seeing a national climate target and more collaboration between provinces in achieving it.

“It’s not going to be perfect, but it’s going to be good to get started.”

Image: Justin Trudeau

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 B.C. government has announced its highly anticipated plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry. While the legislation gives LNG plants a stringent standard for carbon pollution, it doesn't address the rest of the natural gas supply chain and focuses heavily on the use of carbon offsets.

“LNG production releases carbon pollution all the way down the chain of production, from wellhead to waterline," said Merran Smith, director of Clean Energy Canada. "[The] legislation only addresses the last link in that chain — the port facilities where companies would chill the gas to load it aboard ships. It also allows companies to buy credits rather than actually build cleaner terminals.”

Still, Smith characterized the province's announcement as "a good start" and the province indicated regulations to govern upstream emissions from shale gas development are coming.

Facilities will be charged $25 per tonne of emissions over the limit and an incentive program will subsidize corporations’ compliance costs at an increasing rate the closer they get to meeting the target.

At the press conference in Victoria, Environment Minister Mary Polak dodged questions about the potential cost of the incentive system saying only that the government expects revenues from the LNG industry will offset the cost.

She also declined to comment on potential tax revenues from corporations involved in LNG development, citing the soon-to-be-released deal the province will offer to potential LNG investors, such as Malaysia’s Petronas. That company has already threatened to delay its multibillion-dollar project if B.C.’s original tax regime isn’t lowered. 

Polak added the decision allows facilities to consider multiple options to reduce their carbon emissions. This flexibility is intended to drive innovation in the industry, she said. Operators will be able to contribute to a technology fund as part of their efforts to meet the new target, although the shape and direction of the fund has yet to be determined.

The new legislation will supercede 2008's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act.

Upstream Emissions Account for 70% of Industry's Carbon Footprint

The lack of upstream regulation leaves the province exposed to the bulk of the pollution generated upstream of the terminals themselves, according to Matt Horne, B.C. associate regional director for the Pembina Institute.

“Shale gas development needed to fill LNG pipelines and terminals on the coast will account for 70 per cent of the total carbon pollution from the industry," Horne said. "This is not addressed directly by the new legislation. It is, however, encouraging that government has signaled its intent to deal with this at a later date."

Horne said there are already effective strategies to mitigate upstream greenhouse gas emissions. A recent Pembina Institute report, BC LNG Proposals and GHG Emissions, outlines how LNG developers can reduce emission throughout the production chain through carbon capture and sequestration, as well as eliminating venting and flaring during the fracking process. The report also notes there are significant costs associated with these practices and that no jurisdiction in Canada currently requires them. 

The simplest way to address the problem, Horne said, would be to increase the carbon tax and extend it to all aspects of production, ensuring that companies are hit harder over time for failing to lower admissions.

He added that the way in which the government decides to administer both the offsets program and the technology fund will have significant implications for the success of the legislation. Without credible offsets, he said, the province can make little progress toward its emissions reduction targets.

Province Claims Natural Gas is a 'Bridge Fuel'

In its press release, the province claims "natural gas is part of a global climate solution" — a claim debunked in a new report published in the scientific journal Nature last week. The report's author Haewon McJeon concluded that abundant natural gas will actually delay climate action. Numerous reports have found upstream emissions mean natural gas is similar to coal when it comes to climate impacts.

“Given the level of LNG development targeted by the government, it remains unclear as to how the province will meet its legislated climate targets," Horne said.

The Trouble With Carbon Offsetting

Touted as an extension of the province’s push to achieve a carbon-neutral government through the purchase of offsets, the LNG program requires that all facilities purchase offsets from within British Columbia.

The province’s offset program has come under fire before. Last March, the auditor general John Doyle released a report, in spite of attempts to suppress it, heavily criticizing the program for allowing the purchase of false credits. Focusing on two projects that made up almost 70 per cent of the total offsets the government bought — the Darkwoods Forest Carbon Project and the Encana Underbalanced Drilling project — Doyle reported that the province was spending way more than market value for offsets generated by projects that were slated to go ahead regardless.

“In industry terms, they would be known as ‘free riders’ — receiving revenue ($6-million between the two) for something that would have happened anyway,” Doyle told the Globe and Mail after the report was released.

Last November, the province announced the Crown carbon offset agency, the Pacific Carbon Trust, would be enveloped within B.C.'s Climate Action Secretariat to reduce costs. 

While Polak commented during the press conference that the policy will provide revenue opportunities for those with offsets — in particular First Nations — to sell there has been significant criticism of the real value of the practice to begin with.  

Polak told media yesterday that all offsets purchased will adhere to international standards, and will not allow companies to claim emissions reductions at the market end of industry, for example, claiming offsets for LNG burned in lieu of coal in countries such as China.

Image Credit: B.C. Gov Photos 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.

Last year B.C. joined Washington State, Oregon and California in an effort to limit the causes and effects of climate change. A new poll released today shows British Columbians are eager to see the government keep its commitments under the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy.

The climate plan was designed to respond to “the clear and convincing scientific evidence of climate change, ocean acidification and other impacts from increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which threaten our people, our economy and our natural resources.”

The plan was signed in 2013, with little fanfare. Yet, residents of B.C. strongly support the initiative, and the government’s commitments to limit carbon pollution.

But with the B.C. government’s big ambitions to develop and export liquefied natural gas (LNG), there appears to be a conflict brewing within the province’s own objectives.

Today’s poll, commissioned by the Pembina Institute, Clean Energy Canada and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS) was conducted by Strategic Communications and shows British Columbians want to prioritize five things:

1.     Transition to energy efficient buildings (91%)

2.     Hit our climate targets (89%)

3.     Maintain low-carbon fuel standard (88%)

4.     Increase electric vehicles in government and company fleets (82%), and

5.     Continue the carbon tax (69%)

So far B.C. has been successful at limiting its carbon emissions. The province has a commitment to limit emissions 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020 and 80 per cent below by 2050.

In 2012 the province met its interim goal of being 6 per cent below 2007 levels. The next interim goal comes up in 2016, when the province plans to be 18 per cent below 2007 levels.

But, given the province’s massive push to develop its natural gas resources and build several LNG facilities to liquefy and export the gas to Asia, experts are concerned B.C. may be in danger of failing to meet those targets.

B.C.’s failed ‘clean’ LNG promise

The B.C. Liberal government has made the development of the province’s natural gas deposits and the export of LNG a strong part of its clean energy platform.

In 2010 the province committed to having one LNG plant in operation by 2015 and three more to follow by 2020. Initially the government pledged to have these plants run on clean energy, but has since exempted LNG plants from this requirement, confusing exactly what ‘clean’ LNG might mean.

In 2012 Premier Christy Clark promised to deliver “the cleanest LNG in the world” at the World Economic Forum in China. Within a year she clarified that her “cleanest” standards would only apply to LNG facilities, and not the extraction of gas via fracking or transmission of the resource to production plants.

Then recently Rich Coleman, the provincial minister responsible for natural gas development, told the Globe and Mail the B.C. government would now only be measuring B.C.’s LNG facilities against other facilities, meaning the “cleanest” LNG in the world only has to out-perform previously existing plants to meet the province’s standards.

Coleman also dismissed the previous goal of running LNG plants on clean energy, saying “the cost to deliver the power would be so expensive that it would be ridiculous to make the investment.”

Clean Energy Canada, however, would disagree. The group recently commissioned a feasibility study to determine the reliability and affordability of regionally sourced renewable power for B.C.’s LNG development.

They found “any LNG facility on the North Coast could primarily power its production facilities with renewable energy and do so reliably, affordably and on schedule – using established commercial technologies.”

Further, they found “doing so reduces that plant’s carbon pollution by 45 per cent, and increases local permanent jobs by 40 per cent.”

Kevin Sauvé from the Pembina Institute confirmed that B.C.’s LNG ambitions stand in conflict with its own climate targets: “Multiple analyses have shown that B.C. targets are not achievable if three LNG terminals are developed by 2020, as the government intends.”

“This highlights a tension between public opinion and current government priorities, and is something that government should address as it develops its LNG regulations and the next phase of the Climate Action Plan,” Sauvé told DeSmog Canada.

There are a total of 14 proposed LNG facilities for the central coast of B.C.

As DeSmog Canada previously reported, the gas industry is seriously underreporting fugitive methane emissions – a reporting error that threatens B.C.’s ability to meet its own targets under the Climate Action Plan.

Using standard industry fugitive emissions rates, B.C. natural gas production emissions are likely 25 per cent higher than reported.

Another poll, commissioned by the same three groups and released in April of this year, found 78 per cent of British Columbians want the province to shift away from producing, using and exporting fossil fuels and to make the transition to using cleaner sources of energy.

“Given British Columbians desire to see the province transition away from both using and exporting fossil fuels, a wholesale push for LNG does not make sense for B.C.,” Sauvé said.

“Particularly given that the government’s current plans for developing LNG will make it impossible for the province to hit its climate targets.” 

Climate action and a strong economy

An analysis from the group Sustainable Prosperity shows B.C.’s carbon tax is both an “environmental and economic success story.”

The carbon tax, according to Sustainable Prosperity, has been remarkably good at limiting fuel use since it was introduced in 2008. And there have been no adverse impacts on the B.C. economy to speak of.

While B.C. reduced its fuel consumption by 17.4 per cent, its GDP kept pace with the rest of Canada.

Stewart Elgie, professor of law and economics at the University of Ottawa and the report’s lead author said, “B.C.’s experience shows that it is possible to have both a healthier environment and a strong economy – by taxing pollution and lowering income taxes.”

Another new report from PICS shows that, despite the government’s decision to exempt the agricultural sector from the carbon tax, there is “little evidence that the carbon tax was associated with any statistically significant effects on agricultural trade or competitiveness.”

Even in areas where the carbon tax was assumed to have negative impacts, there appears to be little damage done.

“The first phase of BC’s climate action plan has been an environmental and economic success,” Sauvé said, “and now is the time to build on it.”

“Government needs to lay out a road map for how we will meet our 2020 climate target as part of the second phase of its Climate Action Plan. Following through on the commitments it’s made in the Pacific Coast Action Plan would be a good start, particularly as those commitments appear to be popular with British Columbians.” 

Image Credit: Rich Coleman speaks at the B.C. LNG Conference. Photo by the Province of B.C. via Flickr.

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

Alberta and B.C. announced they’ve reached an agreement today to satisfy B.C.’s five conditions for supporting oil pipeline development in the province.

B.C. Premier Christy Clark has also agreed to sign on to Alberta Premier Alison Redford’s national energy strategy. 

The announcement comes on the heels of all-night meetings between Alberta and B.C. officials. The condition in question was the fifth — B.C.’s call for a greater share of economic benefits from the pipeline in exchange for the environmental risks borne by the province.

However, it appears that condition has been punted to negotiations between B.C. and industry.

In a statement, Redford said: “If the government of B.C. decides to place additional charges on industry that go beyond the federal and provincial restrictions on responsible resource development, this is not something for the government of Alberta to negotiate — it is for the government of B.C. to negotiate directly with producers and industry.”

In reaction to the announcement, Living Oceans executive director Karen Wristen issued a statement saying Redford’s signature on Clark’s conditions is merely symbolic as Redford is unable to satisfy the five conditions (successful completion of an environmental review, “world-leading” marine spill response and land oil-spill prevention, addressing aboriginal legal requirements, treaty rights and opportunities and a “fair share” of economic benefits).

“It really means very little, when we consider that Premier Clark just released a report by Nuka Research that makes it clear that her condition concerning ‘effective oil spill response' cannot be met,” Wristen said. “Quite apart from the impossibility of cleaning up spilled bitumen, there remains the completely unaddressed opposition of First Nations and a majority of British Columbians to seeing supertankers on the B.C. coast.”

Beyond that, there’s the discrepancy between the “five conditions” announced 15 months ago, commonly referred to by Premier Christy Clark, and the province’s final argument to the federal panel reviewing Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project, which was filed just five months ago.

In the province’s final argument — a 100-page report rejecting Enbridge’s proposal and submitted two weeks after the spring election — the B.C. government is much more precise about the hurdles facing proposals to ship oil off B.C.’s coast.

For example, while B.C.’s five conditions call for “world-leading” oil spill response, its final argument clarifies the province’s goal for “effective response” and recognizes effective response isn’t possible in many cases.

Citing an Enbridge witness, the province states: “With respect to…most open ocean spills, no oil from a spill is recovered; the oil remains in the environment.”

Another important point the province makes in its final argument is that the public process regarding Enbridge's review is complete. No changes to the proposal can be probed and tested in a democratic fashion.

With that in mind, the real question to ask today is: given the province's final argument that thoroughly refused Enbridge's project and signaled the end of the public process, how can Premier Christy Clark justify changing her tune five months later after closed-door negotiations?

Image Credit: BC Gov 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.