At the premiers’ climate summit this week, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall brought up a statistic that has received a fair amount of attention lately: Canada’s emissions account for fewer than two per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

He’s not wrong, but used as an argument against doing our part to combat climate change, his point does contain some flawed logic.

“Showing leadership matters, signals matter, examples matter, but the numbers are the numbers,” Wall said.

Essentially, Wall appears to be suggesting that because no single action by itself will solve the problem, we shouldn’t take that single action.

Applying this logic to other situations reveals just how faulty it is.

“Canada accounted for less than two per cent of the allied war effort in the Second World War but our leadership certainly made a difference,” says Tzeporah Berman, adjunct professor in the faculty of environmental studies at York University.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne rejected Wall’s argument.

“Yes, we are a small country in terms of our population and absolute emissions, but we are heavy emitters per capita and that actually gives us more of a responsibility to innovate and create technology that allow us to deal with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,” she said.

A recent poll showed that most Canadians side with Wynne over Wall. Fifty-eight per cent of Canadians disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions are justified because they represent only a small portion of the global total. Only 17 per cent agreed with that sentiment.

So, let’s get clear about how Canada’s emissions fit into the global climate context and how our country has been performing so far.

Both on an absolute basis and on a per capita basis, Canada is a very significant polluter. The World Bank lists Canada in the top 15 emitters of carbon dioxide per capita. And, when taking into account emissions from land use and forestry, the World Resources Institute ranks Canada as the highest per capita polluter in the world.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, using International Energy Agency data, ranks Canada ninth when it comes to the country’s global share of carbon emissions.

The oilsands are the fastest growing source of emissions in Canada even though Alberta is home to only 11 per cent of the population.

As the Pembina Institute puts it, if Alberta were a country it would have the highest per capita emissions in the world.

What’s more, Environment Canada projects oilsands emissions will more than double over the next decade, growing from 48 megatonnes in 2010 to 104 megatonnes in 2020.

In this figure the National Energy Board compares several oilsands’ production forecasts, all of which show significant growth in the resource continuing to 2035.

That growth is completely at odds with meeting our climate targets. In fact, Alberta’s growth in emissions is actually un-doing the climate gains made in other provinces, such as Ontario’s phase-out of coal powered energy plants.

That’s been allowed to happen because despite eight solid years of promises, Canada still has no national regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.

Last December, during the UN climate summit in Lima, Peru, Stephen Harper made headlines for saying it would be “crazy” to regulate the oil and gas sector. Canada regularly ranks dead last out of developed nations on the climate file.

Under the Copenhagen Accord, Canada committed to reducing its emissions 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 but, according to Environment Canada, we are nowhere near meeting that target.

The importance of this can’t really be overstated.

This is why: Canada has subscribed to the target of limiting the world’s temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius. Each country’s contributions to that target translate into our ability to limit the worst impacts of climate change. Canada’s failure to meets its own target threatens this international goal that other countries are furiously working towards.

The debate about climate change isn’t merely a moral one. The cost of failing to act will almost certainly outweigh the costs of acting. Think: floods, heat waves, adaptation efforts, rising sea levels, water scarcity, lower crop yields and wildfires.

Economic research by experts like Yale’s William Nordhaus demonstrates that waiting to act on climate will cost a lot — like in the trillions-of-dollars a lot.

All of that is to say that Canada’s poor-sport attitude on climate change amounts to a major ‘tragedy of the commons’ outcome. Basically, if everyone shrugs off their individual responsibilities, we’re all going to suffer.

Image Credit: Kris Krug

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

Today an oil tanker carrying between 500,000 and 600,000 barrels of western Canadian oilsands (also called tarsands) bitumen arrives in Bilbao, a port city in northern Spanish. It is the first shipment of Canadian bitumen to the European Union and a sign the federal government’s “pan European oilsands advocacy strategy” is succeeding.

“This shipment could open the door to more imports of dirty tarsands," says Franziska Achterberg of Greenpeace from Brussels. "Europe can’t be both a climate champion and a market for climate-wrecking tar sands. The EU must uphold its environmental credentials and stand up to the intense lobbying by the oil industry and the Canadian government."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government has been lobbying the EU since 2009 to keep its markets open to bitumen. Internal documents have shown the federal government has used its embassies in Europe “to protect and advance Canadian interests related to the oil sands.”  

EU Could Lose Credibility As World's Climate Leader

The European Union has set ambitious but necessary targets to reduce its production of global-warming greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent by 2030 (based on 1990 levels). No other developed country including Canada has even come close to matching this. If the EU continues to import more bitumen it will undermine its credibility as a world leader on climate change, experts say.

“The landing of massive amounts of dirty tar sands to our shores runs counter to Europe’s stated aspirations to decarbonize transport and curtail its addiction to oil. European drivers will be forced to fill up their tanks with tar sands that will raise emissions – not lower them – and push up the costs of decarbonization by billions of euros,” says Laura Buffet of Transport & Environment.

Fives Years On, Fuel Quality Directive Still Not Implemented

For years, the EU has wanted to pass legislation encouraging European transport fuel suppliers to decrease the carbon footprint of their product. The Fuel Quality Directive confirms fuels produced from bitumen have a higher carbon footprint (12 to 40 per cent higher) than fuels from conventional oil. Because bitumen is a heavy unconventional tar-like oil it requires vastly more energy to extract and process, resulting in more greenhouse gases than conventional oil.

The Fuel Quality Directive would be a disincentive for purchasing highly polluting fuels, such as oilsands. Fearing a “dirty oil” label being slapped on Canadian bitumen if the Fuel Quality Directive is passed, the Canadian government has lobbied against it in a manner one EU politician describes as something never seen before:

“There have been massive lobbying campaigns by the car industry, by the chemicals industry, banks, food giants, etc. But so far I have not seen such a lobbying campaign by any state,” Satu Hassi, a Finnish Member of European Parliament told Reuters in 2012 about the Canadian lobbying against the directive.

7% of EU's Fuel Supply Could be Bitumen by 2020

With the Fuel Quality Directive still in limbo (the last vote on the directive ended in a stalemate), Spanish oil company Repsol’s bitumen shipment will most likely not be the last. Repsol has reportedly been investing in upgrading its refineries to process heavy bitumen. Much like Canada, very few refineries in the EU have the necessary refining equipment to turn bitumen into fuels.

“To the refiner, it’ll just be the price you can get and the product you get after refining it, so they wouldn’t care what the source is. They wouldn’t think about the carbon content at all,” Torbjørn Kjus, an oil analyst at DNB Markets told the RTCC news service.

A report earlier this year by the Natural Resources Defense Council estimates bitumen could make up nearly seven per cent of the EU’s total transport fuel supply by 2020 if oilsands pipeline projects such as Keystone XL in the U.S. and Energy East from Alberta to Saint John, N.B., are approved. Combined, the two TransCanada pipelines could pump approximately two million barrels of bitumen every day. Much of this will be exported out of North America.

Image Credit: Transport 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.

This is a guest post by journalist and filmmaker Michael Harris. A longer version of this article originally appeared on iPolitics.

Don’t be surprised if something big happens inside the hermetically sealed world of the Stephen Harper Party — and sooner rather than later.

It could be the departure of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, or a spectacular policy pivot, or even an election from space. Some people think there is still a chance it could be a Harper resignation.

Prime Minister Harper, like senators Duffy and Wallin, is beginning the most painful journey of all — from key political asset to major party liability.

It is a slow process, but can reach runaway elevator speed if the cable snaps. Harper is at the stage where it is beginning to fray.

Knowingly or unknowingly, the prime minister has presided over two major scandals which are both far from over — robocalls and the Wright/Duffy Affair — and one in which the party was caught cheating, the in-and-out scandal. His Conservative values are now purely rhetorical.

The PM has also tightened the choke chain around his own people, dictating not so benevolently from the PMO what he wants done. Some people have had enough, tired of taking orders from an office whose stealthy activities have brought the police when there's no Nigel to right the ship.

Last June, Brent Rathgeber broke his leash to sit as an independent. The caucus has had ants in its pants ever since — particularly the theo-cons who have been completely betrayed on their agenda by the prime minister.

Harper’s judgment in personal appointments — from the two senators now under RCMP investigation to shady characters like Arthur Porter and Bruce Carson — has been deplorable.

The PM’s political vulnerability has now reached the point where, as Andrew Coyne wrote, the party is beginning to imagine a post-Harper universe. The scary part for the Conservative Party is that the post-Harper universe may be run by a new father who is not a Conservative and doesn’t mind the odd toke.

But even more telling, prominent figures in the party used the Manning Networking Conference to speak out against the PM’s political judgement, issue management and style — ever so gently, but ever so clearly. Even a year ago, that would have been unthinkable.

Take Preston Manning. The man who laid the foundations for Stephen Harper’s political career in 1987 has urged the prime minister to restore democracy. Yikes! The only place you need to restore democracy is somewhere it doesn’t exist. Was it possibly the gentlest way of telling someone they were a dictator?

If it was, some people were less delicate. Kelsey Johnson reported in iPolitics that former Conservative MP Inky Mark picked up on Manning’s comment, using Twitter to say that Harper “was dictator since day one.”

The elder statesman of Reform/Conservative politics in Canada said out loud what a lot of Canadians have been thinking for some time: time to restore democracy, Mr. Prime Minister, not subvert it.

Give Elections Canada the power it asked for, rather than diminishing the power the Conservatives wished Elections Canada didn’t have in the robocalls investigation. How do you improve elections by reducing the powers of Elections Canada?

Conservatives across Canada are getting sick of a party that has become a cult of one — which is why one of the other things Manning advised Harper to do was to stop working the bit in the mouth of caucus, loosen the reins and go easy on the spurs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: Environmental Defence, Enbridge

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

As the Obama administration revisits its decision on whether to approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, DeSmog Canada decided to take a look at how the project became a cause célèbre.

We asked ourselves: Of all the environmental causes to fight, what was it that mobilized Hollywood celebrities, renowned scientists, environmental activists and a handful of Texans to face jail time protesting a proposed pipeline from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast?

What’s more: How did a decision on the project – which Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper once brushed off as a “no-brainer” – get sidelined by the U.S. government ahead of a crucial 2012 presidential election?

While the Stephen Harper government has been quick to point fingers at so-called foreign-funded “radicals” and First Nations, we believe the answer lies much closer to home.

In fact, if the Obama administration decides to reject TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline, the Harper government will need to face facts: Its own environmental policies and PR tactics will be largely to blame.

Its pro-pipeline campaign, which vilifies environmental groups and suggests Canadians must choose between the economy and the environment, is backfiring. Keystone XL could very well be the first failure case study, followed by other anti-pipeline movements such as the one organizing against the Enbridge Northern Gateway.

Where exactly did the Harper government go wrong? The bungling of the issue dates back to 2006, when the newly elected Harper administration began backing away from the Kyoto Protocol climate change agreement, going against the trend of most other developing nations.

At a time when climate change concerns started to resurface as a top issue for Canadians, the Harper government was signaling its plans to loosen environmental targets for heavy-polluting industries, in particular oil and gas and tar sands. Its argument was that the targets were unrealistic and uneconomic.

That said, as the 2008-09 recession took hold, the pro-development message resonated with many Canadians. While climate change concerns remained, polls taken during the global financial crisis showed those worries took a back seat to the economic worries.

However, as the economy recovered in 2010 and 2011, so too did environmental concerns. Still the Harper government continued to drive home its commitment to expanding the Alberta tar sands and played down the importance of meeting emissions targets.

When it officially withdrew Canada from the Kyoto Protocol in 2011, amid international backlash, the Harper government and its friends in the oil industry continued to treat climate change not as an environmental issue, but as a public relations problem.

Once the U.S. announced it would delay the Keystone XL decision, the Harper PR machine went into overdrive. Instead of seeking collaboration with environmental groups and First Nations, the government doubled down, ramping up its rhetoric about environmental “radicals,” while at the same time increasing its advertising spending to promote the Harper administration as environmentally responsible.

Consider the response to a February 2013 report from the federal environment commissioner, Scott Vaughan, which found shortcomings in how the government protects citizens from pollution risks associated with resources development. Commenting on the findings in his final report Commissioner Vaughan said, “we need a boom in environmental protection in this country.”



Instead of responding with a commitment to do better the Harper Government sent Canadian Ambassador to the US, Gary Doer, out to the media to suggest that Keystone XL critics have overblown the estimated net increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the Keystone pipeline project.

He was quoted by Postmedia News saying: “If you ask the question: Do you want oil from (Venezuelan President) Hugo Chavez or (Alberta Premier) Alison Redford I think I know the answer.”


With all due respect to the Ambassador this is just a bad political shell game that has already backfired once. People can see that he is asking the wrong question. What Americans want to know is: Why isn’t the Harper government working quickly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the tar sands and other sectors of the Canadian economy?

In its newest advertising campaign, the government continues to promote itself as greening the tar sands, even though its emission targets remain largely unchanged. This greenwashing only serves to inflame the critics, as we’ve seen with the fresh round of Keystone XL climate change protests in Washington.

Now, as a result of the Harper government’s muted response to environmental concerns, Keystone XL has become about much more than just a pipeline. As a recent opinion piece in The Guardian points out, Keystone XL will become a climate legacy issue for the Obama administration at a time when the environment has once again become top-of-mind for many Americans, particularly in the destructive aftermath of Superstorm Sandy.

Instead of attempting to address society’s growing concern about climate change, the Harper government’s response has been to try to spin its way out of the issue through denial and misleading PR campaigns. What’s worse, these government-sponsored ad campaigns are being funded by Canadian taxpayers, many of whom disagree with the Harper administration’s position on the environment, according to polls.

Still, as global climate change concerns continue to grow, the Harper government continues to dig in its heels. It’s that stance that is fuelling environmentalists not just with Keystone XL, but Northern Gateway and other resource projects across North America.

Opposition to Canada’s tar sands expansion efforts is growing globally, and the Harper government has only itself to blame.

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.

“We are not muzzling scientists.” – Peter Kent, Canada’s Environment Minister.

I shook my head reading Margaret Munro’s Weekend Vancouver Sun article on freedom of information documents that caught Canada’s Minister of the Environment lying about muzzling scientists.

Kent has repeatedly denied that the government is muzzling scientists. But according to the documents, Kent’s office clearly muzzled Environment Canada researcher David Tarasick, preventing him from speaking to a number of media outlets about an unprecedented hole that appeared in the ozone layer above the Arctic in 2011.

According to Munro, “the documents also say Kent’s office and the Privy Council Office, which reports to the prime minister, decide when and if Environment Canada scientists are allowed to brief the media about anything from wildlife to water quality."

Why would the Minister of the Environment block public discussion of scientific work that may be important for the health and safety of Canadians and their environment?

Shouldn’t a minister of the environment be working to inform the public about environmental threats, encouraging the free flow of scientific knowledge and inviting informed citizens to participate in the decision-making process?

OK, it may be a bit naïve expecting politicians to tell the truth. Most Canadians have an idea who benefits when scientists are muzzled and the free exchange of scientific knowledge about environmental threats is constrained.

The real question, then, is why Minister Kent seems so comfortable lying to Canadians about muzzling scientists when he knows that we know what he is doing?

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 the third and final post in the series China-Canada Investment "Straitjacket:" Exclusive Interview with Gus Van Harten. You can access Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

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.

Just over a week before the Northern Gateway Pipeline hearings began, EthicalOil.org and its allies launched a pre-emptive PR offensive on environmental and First Nations groups who oppose the pipeline. Their new website, OurDecision.ca, and ad campaign are an attempt to invalidate opposition to the pipeline by pointing to the small amount of American funding going to some environmental groups, and claiming that pipeline opponents are actually the “puppets” of “foreign interests.”

Sun News was first to promote the campaign, and by the end of the week, numerous papers across Canada were repeating the story. After mentioning last November that "significant American interests" would line up against the pipeline, Stephen Harper eagerly picked up where he left off, touting EthicalOil.org's cause, decrying the foreign influence attempting to “overload” the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Review. By Monday, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver had penned a letter to Canadians denouncing the foreign interests trying to “hijack” the review process "to achieve their radical ideological agenda". The same ominous tone and divisive talking points were parroted over and over by EthicalOil.org, Harper, Oliver and the credulous media, driving an entire week of news coverage.  

The OurDecision.ca campaign was timed to hit national news just as many Canadians were tuning into this issue for the first time, and this frame (“foreign interests” vs. a “Canadian decision”) could have a lasting impact on how people view one of the most important debates in a generation. 

So how did a small industry front group with secretive funding sources manage to have so much impact on the national conversation? Well, it looks like the Harper government, EthicalOil.org, and Sun Media have coordinated with one another to create an echo chamber that turns industry talking points into national news. We'll show how one digital communications company intimately connects EthicalOil.org, the Harper Government and Sun Media.

Ethical Oil Echo Chamber

The 'ethical oil' echo chamber was built in 2010, after the release of Ezra Levant's book of the same name. As Donald Gutstein writes, Sun papers prominently featured three excerpts from Levant's book, giving it national exposure. Through a series of articles and appearances in Sun-owned papers, the National Post and right wing talk shows, an echo chamber of voices amplified the 'ethical oil' message. Then came bloggers like Alykhan Velshi, who helped to turn Levant's book into the ethicaloil.org website, and before long it reached the mouths of politicians.

From Gutstein's perspective, ideas often take years to percolate through public opinion filters before they end up on national policy agendas. But in this case, it appears that industry and government synced up messaging very rapidly. 

Go NewClear

Last week, we reported an extensive web that connects EthicalOil.org with oil interests, the Harper government, and other conservative leaders and groups. At the centre is Go Newclear, a Vancouver-based digital communications agency with a focus on public affairs and politics. An analysis of the web server hosting of gonewclearproductions.com reveals an intricate network of over 50 websites connected primarily to the Conservative Party of Canada, the Wildrose Alliance Party, EthicalOil.org, and other right wing causes and politicians.

Go Newclear’s President and COO is Hamish Marshall, the husband of current Ethical Oil spokesperson Kathryn Marshall, and a former Conservative campaigner, former PMO staffer and Conservative strategist deeply connected to oil interests. The other two principals in the company have deep connections to the Harper government as well.

One of the principals, Brendan Jones, worked as a website administrator for the Office of the Leader of the Opposition from August 2005-February 2006. Following Harper's election, he worked as the special assistant for the Prime Minister from February 2006-November 2007. Jones then moved to the Conservative Resources Group, or Conservative Caucus Research Bureau, an agency responsible for developing political communication products, branding and marketing decisions and liaising between the federal Conservative caucus and Prime Minister’s Office, until 2009. In that role, he was a television and radio specialist. The third principal of Go Newclear, Travis Freeman, is still listed with the Conservative Resources Group.

Now that we know that EthicalOil.org and the Conservative government are deeply connected, what about the other part of the Conservative echo chamber, Sun Media?

Digital fingerprints

As Evan Leeson, the Principal of Catalyst Internet (which is DeSmogBlog's IT team) and a 19 year veteran of website development writes: 

Developers have their bag of reusable tricks to make coding efficient. In this case, all of these sites use precisely the same CSS reset – same elements, same formatting, down to the character. Many sites will use something similar to this one, but this is exact. It's even used on Newclear's own custom home page. It is highly likely the same developer did all these sites.

Connecting the Dots

Correction: **The aforementioned Sun TV News websites were registered in December of 2008 by videotron, a Quebecor company, prior to Sun Media’s application with the CRTC (the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission) in 2010.** When Go Newclear moved the site onto its server in June 2010**, SunTVNews.ca was a promotional website that invited Canadians to pledge to watch the channel when it was launched. It appears that GoNewclear registered these websites while both Brendan Jones and Travis Freeman were working directly for the Conservative Caucus Research Bureau.  

At the time of the website registration, Kory Teneycke was Prime Minister Stephen Harper's director of communications. He had been the director of the Conservative Caucus Research Bureau while Jones worked there. 

On March 30, 2009, Prime Minister Stephen Harper went to New York to meet with Rupert Murdoch. The meeting did not appear on Harper's itinerary, and was intended to be secret, according to reporting by Bruce Cheadle of the Canadian Press. The pair were joined by the President of Fox News (and legendary Republican communications expert), Roger Ailes, and Kory Teneycke.

Within four months of this meeting, Kory Teneycke took a contract with Quebecor to explore the creation of a new Canadian media outlet. Then, ten months later, Quebecor launched Sun Media. Teneycke is now the vice president of the Sun News Network.

This new information sheds some new light on this meeting, and provokes a few fundamental questions. Why does a website for our new conservative-leaning media institution, dubbed "Fox News North," appear to have a direct link to government staffers? On whose orders were these websites created by Go Newclear? Were any of these orders from government? From oil companies?

It's time for the media to ask some hard questions about the relationships that are powering the EthicalOil.org echo chamber. 

Check out this funny Rick Mercer video mocking the "foreign influence" campaign:

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.