At an estimated 2,700 litres, the bunker fuel spill in English Bay was relatively small — yet the stakes of that spill couldn’t be much higher.

With Enbridge and Kinder Morgan both hoping to build oil pipelines to B.C., which would significantly increase oil tanker traffic in the province’s inside coastal waters, a dramatically mishandled marine oil spill raises all sorts of questions — questions the federal government does not appear well-positioned to answer, despite its aggressive push for West Coast oil exports.

“Obviously, from the oil industry’s perspective, you couldn’t have picked a worse place to have an oil spill,” Jim Stanford, economist at Unifor and founder of the Progressive Economics Forum, told DeSmog Canada.

While the federal government insisted its response was “world-class,” a former commander of the shuttered Kits Coast Guard station blamed the six-hour delay in even deploying a boom to contain the oil on the closure of that station in 2013 — a move that is reported to have saved the federal government at estimated $700,000 a year.

The English Bay spill, beyond being a systemic failure, has been a total PR disaster.

“It’s a very dramatic indication of the failure of our environmental safeguards around transportation and energy,” Stanford said.

Will The Real Energy Superpower Please Stand Up

Canada’s aggressive “energy superpower” push — a Harper government priority that has been accompanied by the elimination of environmental laws— has drawn criticism from all corners, and not just domestically.

The Obama administration indicated the fate of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline, which has been caught in a protracted review process for six years, was intrinsically tied up with the oilsands’ growing greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union came close to labelling oilsand’s crude as high-carbon due to its energy-intensive extraction and refining process (that move was thwarted by intensive lobbying by the Canadian and Albertan governments). 

Back at home, the undercutting of environmental reviews and elimination of environmental laws has resulting in growing citizen concern about Canada’s oilsands development and record on climate change, as demonstrated by recent climate and pipeline protests.

Martha Hall Findlay, former Liberal MP and executive fellow at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, says the federal government has blown the environmental file.

“You don’t poke people in the eye when the rest of the world is saying there are significant environmental concerns,” she said.

“I think it’s smart to acknowledge that and address it. Our current federal government has done the opposite in many ways. And, importantly, have been seen to be doing the opposite. There’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that it was a factor in Obama’s decision on Keystone.”

With Friends Like These Who Needs Protesters?

What’s become clearer is that such a myopic approach to policymaking has created difficult conditions for the extractive industries.

“The Harper government’s bloody-mindedness on environmental issues has actually done more to bog down large resource projects than anything the environmental movement could have done,” Rick Smith, executive director of the Broadbent Institute, said.

“What it’s done is make First Nations, local communities and environmentalists feel marginalized and angry.”

Keith Stewart of Greenpeace Canada echoed the sentiment, saying complaints are now likely to emerge from beyond the protest crowd: “If the government won’t listen to Canadians about it, they’re soon going to have to listen to our would-be customers.”

While there’s some significant progress occurring on the provincial front on the climate change file, that can’t make up for the lack of federal leadership.

“People outside Canada don’t necessarily understand the nuances of the different levels of governance within the country,” notes Anthony Heyes, University of Ottawa economics professor and Canada Research Chair in Environmental Economics. “Outsiders see it as a country that has a relatively disappointing record in not just greenhouse gas emissions in an absolute way, but also against international commitments..”

Hall Findlay added that if the federal government had followed the lead of the provinces, Keystone XL might have been approved. But at this point, piecemeal climate commitments from the provinces might not be enough.

An associated problem is the fact that Harper bet the economy on the success of the oil and gas sector (Thomas Walkom put it nicely in a piece for the Toronto Star: “Harper has his own unspoken industrial policy. It can be summed up in a word: pipelines.”)

Stanford suggests that such infatuation has come at the cost of other industries — manufacturing, tourism, transportation — due to the high dollar being pegged to an extremely volatile resource.

“You would have needed a government with the foresight and courage to actively push against that in order to protect our environment, obviously, but also our economic diversity and long-run prosperity instead of riding the bandwagon as they did,” he said.

Stanford notes that the employment rate is currently as low as it was in the summer of 2009, the worst moment of the global recession. That’s got to sting for a party that advertises its leader as a trained economist — not an elitist lawyer or under-qualified teacher.

Ultimately, Harper’s mismanagement of the energy and environment file — and most importantly the nexus of those two things — might be more of a gift than a burden for those who want to see progress on climate change.

“In a way, the fact that Stephen Harper has burned any semblance of federal environmental regulation to the ground is an opportunity for Canadians to rebuild something at the federal level that’s new, truly modern and forward thinking,” Smith says.

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.

“Responsible Resource Development.”

“World-Class Environmental Monitoring.”

“Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity.”

These are just some of the titles to emerge from the Harper government in recent years to pleasantly describe what is otherwise seen as a myopic and undemocratic program of increased resource extraction across the country. Yet, according to a new report released by the human rights watch group Amnesty International, Canada’s pursuit of energy superstardom has sidelined the nation’s human rights issues.

According to Amnesty International the Harper government has put economic development above human rights concerns and this is playing out most notably in the growing conflict between First Nations and the energy resources sector.

In a press release on its website Amnesty notes Harper’s recent statement to the UN General Assembly where he called for a world “where human rights and justice are preserved.”

Amnesty notes, “government action far too often fails to match those words.”

Alex Neve, director general for the group, recently told The Canadian Press that Amnesty wants human rights front and centre in next year’s upcoming federal election.

“With all the attention that will be on jobs and the economy, we have to recognize how important it is to deal with indigenous people’s land rights, corporate accountability and a trade policy that is grounded in human rights,” he said.

“All of that is not only good for rights and justice, but that’s actually ultimately the road for more sustainable economic growth.”

The Harper government has recently come under international fire for mistreatment of indigenous communities across Canada. James Anaya, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Aboriginal People, said Canada “faces a crisis when it comes to the situation of indigenous peoples of the country.”

Anaya said in the 10 years since the UN’s last visit to Canada, no significant progress has been made to address the very serious threats faced by aboriginal communities. In his recommendations to Canada, Anaya pressed Canada to avoid resource extraction on traditional indigenous lands without “adequate consultations” and the “free, prior and informed consent” of affected aboriginal communities.

Yet both federal and provincial governments have continued to push for new oilsands development, pipelines, fracking and mines on First Nations territory.

Intensive expansion of the oilsands in Alberta has led to multiple high-profile legal battles with local First Nations and proposed oilsands pipelines have ignited similar battles in British Columbia and likely Ontario.

A protest against gas fracking in New Brunswick made international headlines last year after a Mi’kmaq blockade on Elsipogtog territory was met with an aggressive police response including snipers. Similar conflicts have occurred on other reserves like that of the Kainai Blood Tribe, where aboriginal communities were met with violence and imprisonment for their opposition to fracking and natural gas development.

Mining has also been centre-stage in the conflict between indigenous communities and government and industry.

In British Columbia after the disaster at Imperial Metals’ Mount Polley mine the Tahltan nation set up a blockade at the entrance of the company’s Red Chris mine and called for an independent, third-party review.

The long-standing conflict between First Nations and the extractive industry was radically altered this year after the Tsilhqot’in people in Northern British Columbia won the most significant land title dispute in the country’s history. The implications of that precedent-setting decision will become clear as nations make similar land-based territorial claims across the province.

In addition the Harper government ratified the Canada-China Foreign Investment Protection and Promotion Act (FIPA), a trade agreement that pits First Nations rights against the legal obligation under the treaty to protect Chinese investments in projects like the Northern Gateway Pipeline.

Amnesty is calling on the Harper government to subject such trade agreements to rigorous and independent human rights assessments. Amnesty also recommends the government establish an ombudsman for the extractive industries and provide better access to Canadian courts for people harmed by Canadian mining companies.

The groups is also challenging Canada to respect both international and domestic laws that protect indigenous rights and to launch a public inquiry into Canada’s missing and murdered indigenous women.

Alexandra Lemieux, spokesperson with Natural Resources Canada, said “our government has taken substantial action to enhance participation of First Nations in resource development.”

She added, “we recently opened the Major Projects Management Office-West to enhance engagement between governments, industry and First Nations.”

According to Amnesty’s report an estimated 600 new major resource extraction projects are planned for Canada over the next decade. And although many of these projects will affect First Nations, Inuit and Métis the federal government has not ensured indigenous rights will be protected, the report states.

“Canada’s failure to ground economic development in respect for Indigenous peoples’ rights, hesitancy to ratify treaties that enhance law and order, and inconsistency in which countries attract Canada’s criticism are among the issues outlined in the new agenda,” Neve said.

“Economic growth, the quest for law and order and the promotion of freedom and democracy abroad must have respect for human rights at their core.”

“With an election on the horizon,” he added, “the human rights agenda is clear.”

“The road to economic success must be based on respect for rights of Indigenous peoples, upholding economic, social and cultural rights, welcoming refugees, and protecting the human rights of all."

Image Credit: Joyce Williams and Linda Williams of the Squamish Nation. Photo by 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.

Days after another delay by the Obama administration on TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline, members of the Alberta government are hitting the U.S. circuit to promote the oilsands and boost their “green” credentials.

Three government officials are heading to key regions in the U.S. to push for continued market access and advertise what Albertan energy minister Diana McQueen calls “our commitment to clean energy development.”

Alberta hopes to showcase investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology as part of a successful emissions reduction plan.

Critics say the Alberta government’s talk about “sustainability” and “clean energy” is not in line with reality.

“If you’ve been following the Canadian government’s sales pitch for the Keystone XL pipeline, you’ve probably heard this claim before: ‘Emissions per barrel have been reduced by 26 per cent between 1990 and 2011,’” writes P.J. Partington, senior federal policy analyst with the Pembina Institute.

However, the reality, Partington writes, is that “since 1990, oilsands production has quintupled, while GHG emissions from production and upgrading have quadrupled.”

Partington writes: "[The above graph] shows the close relationship between annual GHG emissions and the rate of production — especially in recent years."

University of Alberta energy economist Andrew Leach wrote this week that Canada's incoherence on climate change has killed Keystone XL.

"As an antidote to our lack of ambition on policies, our governments both in Edmonton and in Ottawa have decided to work on an ambitious program of wordsmithing," Leach wrote in Macleans.

Partington notes the oilsands sector already emits as much carbon pollution as the entire province of British Columbia, and production is projected to double within a decade. Trends in the sector’s GHG performance will therefore have a huge impact on emissions levels and major consequences for Canada.

The sales team

Cal Dallas, Alberta Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations, is in Seattle, Wash., this week to attend the Pacific Energy Forum (April 23-25). According to the Alberta press release, Dallas will use the opportunity to drum up foreign investment interests in the oilsands and advertise extraction technologies.

“We want to work with Asian partners to better understand how to unlock their unconventional resources in an environmentally sustainable way while encouraging investment in our energy resources,” Dallas said.

“Alberta is known to be at the forefront of responsible, sustainable and innovative energy development.”

Dallas will discuss the “importance of energy trade to future economic prosperity” although it is unclear how he will address Alberta’s emissions problems, or the threat climate change poses to heavy hydrocarbon assets.

As DeSmog Canada recently reported, ExxonMobil will soon begin disclosing the risk its carbon assets face given international pressure to address climate change.

Leach recently outlined how the oilsands will quickly become unviable in the face of carbon market policies the Alberta and Canadian governments will have little control over. According to Leach’s analysis the oilsands would become uneconomic with even $50/tonne price on carbon.

According to Nicole Leonard, Canadian oil energy analyst at Bentek, oilsands production is expected to increase by 400,000 barrels a day by 2017.

Concerns are mounting, however, that Alberta's failure to adequately address emissions output will create undue risk for potential oilsands investors.

“All leading energy system analysts agree that the oil sands, and other unconventional oils, should not be rapidly expanding,” said energy economist Mark Jaccard. International efforts are geared toward limiting global temperature increases below 2 °C.

Energy Minister Diana McQueen will also travel this week to Pittsburg, Pa., to deliver a keynote speech at the 13th annual Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage Conference (April 28-May 1) and then to New York to promote Alberta to the investment community.

David Dorward, MLA for Edmonton-Gold Bar, will be in Washington, D.C., April 27 to May 2 to meet with the Port-to-Plains Alliance, a business and government consortium representing the economic corridor from Alberta to Texas.

Dorward will work to advance the “Building Alberta Plan,” a provincial project that hopes to strengthen trade by “opening new markets for Alberta’s resources.”

CCS uncertain

At the carbon capture event, McQueen will discuss how Alberta’s two CCS projects demonstrate Alberta’s “commitment to clean energy development.”

Alberta has committed to invest $1.3 billion over 15 years in the Shell Canada Quest carbon capture project to capture waste carbon from its Scotford upgrader and the Enhance Energy Inc. Carbon Trunk Line to capture waste carbon to be used in enhanced oil recovery operations. Shell is half-way completed its project and Enhanced said it would begin constructing its carbon pipeline this spring.

Despite the two projects moving forward, Alberta originally committed to investing in four CCS projects, but two were cancelled after the companies involved deemed the return on investment insufficient.

With only two CCS operations, Alberta is expected to sequester at best three or four million tonnes of carbon a year by 2020 — just a tenth of the province’s CCS target.

“Those two CCS projects are crucial areas of research that are necessary to develop the technology and it is great that the Alberta government has taken action,” says Andrew Read, technical and policy analyst at the Pembina Institute, adding that it was “unfortunate” the investment in CCS hasn’t come with other actions to help cut greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta.

Emissions still rising rapidly

Today, emissions from the oil and gas sector are the largest source of emissions in Canada, surpassing the transportation sector, according to a recently released Environment Canada report, covering the period from 1990 to 2012.

Alberta has also worked to develop a favourable regulatory framework for future CCS projects, but new projects are unlikely without either continued massive government support or a market-altering price on carbon. To be viable, Alberta needs a price on carbon of at least $70 a tonne for CCS technology on upgraders and rising to between $120 to $160 a tonne for CCS technology to be possible for new steam-assisted oilsands operations, according to ICO2N, a Canadian industry-funded group working to advance CCS technology.

“[CCS] is one of the tools in the tool box but it is at the bottom of the toolbox,” John Bennett, executive director of the Sierra Club Canada Foundation told DeSmog Canada. “There are a thousand things that are more cost effective and useful before we [employ CCS] and as long as it is used to extract more fossil fuels, it is not a solution to the problem.”

GHG regulations?

Since 2007, Alberta has required heavy emitters to pay $15 a tonne into a technology fund if they don’t reduce the intensity of their emissions by 12 per cent from baseline levels.

“Alberta’s plan allows companies to pay a small fee to put carbon into the air and then it gives them back the money, so it is not a system that is moving investments into alternatives,” Bennett says. “Any policy that allows the net amount of carbon dioxide emissions to increase is wrong.”

This time last year, Alberta shocked the federal government and the oil industry with a plan to demand a 40 per cent reduction in per-barrel emissions and a $40 per tonne price on emissions that exceed that amount. The plan has since failed to be implemented while Ottawa announced a delay of federal oil and gas greenhouse gas regulations until they can be done “in concert with” the United States.

“The reality of the situation isn’t aligning with [the Alberta government’s] speaking points,” says Read. “I am not sure what they are reporting to decision makers [in the U.S.] because there hasn’t been any progress on developing oil and gas GHG regulations.”

The environmental movement in the United States has seized on Alberta’s environmental record in opposing the Keystone XL pipeline. The $5.4 billion pipeline is proposed to pump 830,000 barrels a day from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast. Currently, the southern leg is in operation, but the approval of the northern leg crossing the border sits with the Obama administration for final approval.

After the recent delay, a final decision isn’t expected until 2015.

Image Credit: Julia Kilpatrick, Pembina Institute

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 message the federal government has been pushing through its ‘responsible resource development’ ad blitz in recent years is one of all Canadians benefiting from developing our energy sources (particularly the oilsands). This is why export pipelines must be built through our communities and LNG plants for natural gas constructed on our coasts. Canadian oil and gas must reach international markets for the economy to thrive, argues Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the infamous global finances referee, took a closer look at Canada’s energy sector – oil and gas primarily – earlier this year and finds the benefits from Canada’s energy boom still remain largely within the energy sector.

“There appears to be an important scope to increase inter-industry linkages across Canada that would lead to wider sharing of benefits from the energy sector,” concludes the IMF report released last January.

The IMF finds every dollar invested in the energy sector in Alberta grows Canadian GDP – an economic vitality indicator – by 90 cents. Of this growth, 82 cents remains in Alberta, mostly in the energy sector (67 cents). The leftover GDP growth is split between Ontario (four cents), the rest of Canada (three cents) and the U.S. (two cents).

“The (IMF) report also shows that the positive impacts of additional exports outside of the energy sector and the producing provinces are surprisingly modest,” says Andrew Jackson, senior policy advisor at the Broadbent Institute in a recent article.

Energy Sector Created Only 1.7 per cent of New Jobs in Canada from 2007 – 2012

Make no mistake the IMF report favours increasing Canadian oil and gas production and building more pipeline capacity. As one would expect the IMF sees impacts of the energy sector on Canada’s economy as positive. The report does not assess the environmental or the social consequences – particularly on Canada’s relationship with First Nations – of the energy sector, which have their own social and economic impacts.

IMF's breakdown of $1 investment in the energy sector scenario.

But the IMF almost appears disappointed by the energy sector’s contributions to economic growth and job creation in Canada:

“The energy sector accounts for only 0.1 percentage points of the average (2¼ percent) annual GDP growth over the last decade. Also, employment in the energy sector increased by less than 13,000 over 2007–12, against a total 752,000 jobs created over the same period in Canada,” states the report.

Health care and social assistance created 22,000 jobs in December 2013 alone according to Statistics Canada.

Photo from federal government's responsible resource development campaign.

While the IMF does not dare to say Canada is suffering from “Dutch disease,” it does conclude the energy boom has taken its toll on the Canadian manufacturing industry.

“Higher energy prices contributed to the real appreciation of the Canadian dollar since early 2000s, which has intensified Canada’s competitiveness challenges in non-energy sectors, particularly in manufacturing,” reads the IMF report.

Rapid Growth vs Slow Growth in Energy Sector – Modest Difference

The IMF gazes into the economic crystal ball to try to predict the future impacts of rapid versus slow development of the energy sector on the economy. If no additional infrastructure to export Canadian energy were to be built – the slow scenario – Canadian GDP would only decrease 0.5 per cent by 2020.

At the other extreme, if all proposed energy export infrastructure is approved and the energy sector develops rapidly (i.e. a 20 per cent increase in oil and gas production in the report) GDP would increase be 2 per cent by 2020. However, the IMF concludes there would be a certain downside to this growth:   

“the current account would be slightly negative, reflecting larger deterioration in the non-energy balance driven by higher imports demand from households and firms.”

Jackson says the “gap between the two scenarios is more modest than might have been thought” given the daily dose of rhetoric Canadians hear insisting the “approval of new pipelines to export oil and gas are central to Canada's economic future.”

IMF Recommendation: Strengthen Domestic Supply Chain

Strengthening Canada’s “domestic-supply chain” will increase the “spillover” benefits from the energy boom into non-energy sector industries according to the report. Building more domestic pipelines to connect western Canadian oil to eastern Canadian refineries is one of the recommendations:

“Canada’s internal market remains segmented, as refineries in eastern Canada are not connected with pipelines to western Canada…. and import much of their crude oil at the higher global (Brent) price,” argues the report.

“This has not only a direct negative impact on Canada’s energy trade balance, but potentially also an indirect one as it limits the competitive boost that Canadian manufacturing firms could derive from accessing a cheaper, domestic source of energy,” concludes the report.

All new pipeline proposals in Canada including TransCanada’s “nation builder” Energy East pipeline involve exporting Canadian oil to international markets. Enbridge’s recently approved Line 9 pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal may be the only exception, but Line 9 could easily be transformed into an export pipeline as well.

The IMF reports supports similar findings by the Canadian Energy Research Institute in 2011 that finds 94% of the economic benefits of expanding the oilsands remain in Alberta.

Image Credit: Government of Canada, IMF

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.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver is attending the East Coast Energy Conference this week, where he said: “Canada is emerging as a 21st century energy superpower – unmatched in reliability, responsibility and potential.” His comments bring Canada’s attempt to situate itself at the centre of North American energy security to the forefront.

The statement was made while addressing relations between Canada and the U.S., the world’s largest trade partnership exchanging $700 billion annually, according to a press release put out by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan).

“As the global middle class grows, so too will global energy demand. Canada can meet that demand: we have solid economic fundamentals and unprecedented energy wealth,” Oliver said.

Mark Jaccard, professor at Simon Fraser University’s School of Resource and Environmental Management, says the title "energy superpower" means little more than Canada’s reliance on fossil fuel exports.

“Presumably it means that a country receives significant revenues from energy exports,” he told DeSmog Canada. “Linking this reality to the word ‘superpower’ might best be described by adjectives such as hubris and hype.”

Jaccard added that Canada’s rush to become an energy superpower “is like trying to become a major exporter of…social harms” because fossil fuels are the “primary cause of catastrophic climate change.”

“The leading independent scientists and economists with expertise in the climate issue would agree on this,” he said.

Federal Green Party leader and B.C. MP Elizabeth May also reacted strongly to Oliver's comments, saying, “there isn’t much in Joe Oliver’s statement that passes any kind of sniff test for veracity.”

Canada’s policies on oil development, especially in the oilsands, amounts to “putting all our eggs in the bitumen basket,” May says.

There’s a carbon bubble, she said, referencing the work of economist Jeff Rubin, “and Canada’s economy is going to tank if all we’re doing is associating ourselves with the oilsands.”

A real 21st century energy superpower would have a much more balanced energy portfolio, according to May.

“You want to have a diversified economy. You want to be investing in renewables. You want to have the latest technology in solar and geothermal and tidal. You want to be as energy efficient as possible,” she said.

“I really can’t say strongly enough that, even if you leave out the environmental downsides of our policies, and leave out climate as a concern, these are not the policies of an energy superpower.”

‘Responsible Resource Development’ Campaign

Oliver highlighted the success of the Harper government’s "responsible resource development plan," which is celebrated by government and industry as strengthening environmental protection while streamlining resource development. Opposition parties, environmental organizations and First Nations criticize it for weakening crucial environmental legislation and environmental assessment procedures to expedite energy development.

The plan includes the elimination and weakening of Canada’s environmental legislation through omnibus budget Bill C-38 and millions of dollars spent on energy-sector advertising.

NRCan budgeted $9 million in 2012-2013 for sleek advertisements that showed Canada’s resource development in a positive job-friendly and environmentally sensitive light.

A NRCan spokesperson told DeSmog Canada the responsible resource development advertising campaign “serves to inform Canadians of the importance of responsible resource development by providing specific facts about measures taken by the government to protect the environment and grow the economy.”

NRCan's advertising budget for 2013-2014 is $8 million.

In addition, the government launched an international stakeholder and outreach campaign to "build prosperity for Canada" designed to “raise awareness that Canada is a secure, reliable and responsible supplier of energy and other natural resources,” NRCan said.

The international campaign is designed to challenge “misinformation” and ensure “a fact-based public dialogue about the development of Canada’s natural resources.”

The total advertising budget is $24 million for two years. The U.S.-targeted Go With Canada website is a part of this international campaign.

Screen shot from the Go With Canada website.

Credibility Gap

A government-commission study led by Leger Marketing found the taxpayer-funded "responsible resource development" advertising lacked some credibility with audiences in early 2013. Focus groups raised criticisms regarding “the lack of ‘hard’ facts” in the ads, the Leger study says.

According to NRCan, the plan “has strengthened environmental protection, made reviews of major resource projects more timely and predictable and provided greater certainty for investors.”

Yet critics of the plan are concerned the Harper government’s efforts to speed up the pace of energy development projects and supporting infrastructure like Enbridge's Northern Gateway oil pipeline and tanker project are being done at the expense of the environment — an expense the advertising campaign is meant to conceal.

“They’ve spent a lot of taxpayers money to tell taxpayers and ordinary citizens how lucky we are to have such bad policies,” May said.

“We’ve had television advertising to tell us that, thanks to Stephen Harper, we’re going to have double-hulled tankers. The slightest bit of reality check from anybody would uncover that for decades the world international standards have prevented the conception of anything but double-hulled tankers. There hasn’t been a single-hulled tanker anywhere near Canadian waters for decades because there are very few left in the world and none are used by responsible shippers. So, again, the arrogance behind the propaganda machine.”

NDP Treasury Board critic Mathieu Ravignat expressed concern at the government’s ads’ similarity to those produced by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), Canada’s largest oil and gas lobby body.

“If you put the ads next to each other — the government ads and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers ads — what’s going on is damage control,” he told the Canadian Press. “We’ve got an industry which doesn’t have the best reputation, we’ve got a government helping part of the industry in order to sell itself as responsible.”

The NRCan press released states “Canada is taking significant action to reduce its GHG emissions.”

As DeSmog Canada recently reported, Canada has no current climate legislation and, according to Environment Canada, is not en route to meeting is emission reductions targets under the Copenhagen Accord.

The press release also says “the long-term trend for greenhouse gas emissions per barrel in the oil sands is downward, falling by 26 per cent between 1990 and 2011.” That may be true, but it fails to take into account the growth in oilsands production, making the sector the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

Canada’s reliability as an energy producer collapses when you consider the country’s oil exports within the context of a warming world, Jaccard says. The danger of resource development in Canada doesn’t have to do so much with the local effects of production, he said, but global emissions.

Climate change “swamps” any other concerns, he says.

With files from Indra Das.

Image Credit: Government of 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.