Sharks, sea turtles, corals, wolffish — the 1,200 kilometre Laurentian Channel off the southwest coast of Newfoundland is home to tremendous biodiversity.

And that’s the reason it’s set to become Canada’s newest Marine Protected Area, a designation designed to conserve and protect vulnerable species and ecosystems.

There’s just one catch: draft regulations for the proposed 11,619 square-kilometre protected area allow oil and gas exploration and drilling for much of the year. In addition, the government has reduced the size of the protected area by more than one-third from what was originally planned.

Documents obtained by The Narwhal paint a picture of a disturbingly close relationship between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and provides clues of how a “marine protected area” ended up allowing offshore oil drilling.

Canada is in a hurry to classify more marine areas as “protected” to meet an international target to protect 10 per cent of its oceans by  2020. Whether an area that allows offshore drilling will even qualify as protected is the subject of heated international debate.

ICYMI: Is Canada Fudging the Numbers on its Marine Protection Progress?

But “high confidence estimates” of up to 257 million barrels of oil and four trillion cubic feet of natural gas put the Laurentian Channel in the crosshairs of conservation and resource extraction.

The documents — obtained by The Narwhal via access to information legislation — reveal that lobbying meetings took place between government and industry without being recorded properly in the federal registry and that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans provided the oil industry lobby group with an advance copy of a presentation.

CAPP received advanced copy of DFO presentation

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans conducted more than 30 consultations since mid-2014, when a proposed regulatory framework for the the Laurentian Channel was first distributed.

Stakeholders included the fishing industry, oil and gas players, the Shipping Federation of Canada, environmental organizations, academics, Indigenous groups and various governments. The last consultation of this kind occured on October 28, 2016, with the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Committee on Oceans Management.

CAPP is listed as only having two consultations with DFO as part of this process: once on May 19, 2016, and another on Oct. 20, 2016.

But on the morning of the second meeting, Stephen Snow — DFO’s manager of oceans for Newfoundland and Labrador — sent an intriguing e-mail to Jennifer Matthews, a policy analyst at CAPP.

Both parties indicated that a call occured on Oct. 19 between Snow and CAPP, with the DFO manager beginning his Oct. 20 e-mail as “a follow-up from our discussion yesterday.” Then, Snow explained that he was attaching a draft presentation about marine conservation targets that he would be presenting that afternoon.

“As we have now concluded consultations with all stakeholders, we have not been giving out the presentation as it contains sensitive information from a DFO perspective that needs to be accompanied with the ‘Presenter,’ ” Snow wrote.  Following that, he specifically requested that CAPP “not share or distribute the power point and delete it as we agreed.”

Excerpt from documents released to The Narwhal via Freedom of Information Legislation. The e-mail exchange shows Stephen Snow, DFO’s manager of oceans for Newfoundland and Labrador, requesting CAPP review, then delete, a presentation regarding marine conservation targets.

This communication raises some big questions, according to Gretchen Fitzgerald,  director of Sierra Club Canada’s Atlantic region chapter.

“It seems like there’s some advanced notice and even some discussions that are happening alluded to in the e-mail that would make you think there’s a little bit too much collaboration going on,” Fitzgerald told The Narwhal.

“It’s just worrying when you see people getting documents in advance of what’s supposed to be a public multi-stakeholder consultation, and being given more opportunity to prepare and an inside-track on these consultations that are supposed to put everybody on an equal footing.”

Stella Ruddock, communications officer for DFO, said in an interview with The Narhwhal that the presentation was sent out early as CAPP had employees in Halifax as well as on the ground in Newfoundland, where the meeting was held, and that it was an attempt to “try to speed up the process of getting the meeting going on time.”

She said that DFO requested that CAPP not share the presentation as “there were maps in the presentation that DFO felt might be misconstrued, I guess, if they weren’t accompanied by the presenter. They felt that if it got out, if it was circulated without the presenter, it might be misunderstood.”

Ruddock couldn’t comment on which specific maps were considered sensitive, or if it’s standard practice for DFO to send out a draft presentation to stakeholders prior to a consultation.

10 CAPP members meet with DFO days after draft regs published

On June 27, 2017 — only three days after the draft regulations for the marine protected area were published in the Canada Gazette — CAPP and at least six other industry heavyweights met with DFO for 45 minutes.

That list included senior representatives from BP, Shell Canada, ExxonMobil, Nexen, Suncor and Statoil. However, e-mails from both CAPP and DFO made reference to “10 CAPP members,” suggesting more may have been present in the room.

Only CAPP and ExxonMobil actually registered the communication in the federal lobbying registry.

ICYMI: BP Wants to Drill Underwater Wells Twice the Depth of Deepwater Horizon in Canada

All companies should have registered the meeting, regardless of it being organized by CAPP, said Duff Conacher, founder of Democracy Watch.

“My opinion is that the companies violated the Lobbying Act by failing to register the meeting in the monthly communications registry,” Conacher said.

BP wasn’t even registered to lobby the federal government (and hadn’t been since 2014).

DFO wanted voluntary commitment not to drill in conservation area

A scenario note prepared for DFO’s senior assistant deputy minister of ecosystems and fisheries management Kevin Stringer noted that CAPP members “will likely raise questions on the intention of the government to prohibit or limit current or future oil and gas activities in MPAs in general, but more specifically in the proposed Laurentian Channel Oceans Act MPA.”

It also noted that DFO’s main objective for the meeting was to ascertain if CAPP would be willing to “demonstrate its marine stewardship commitment” by supporting a statement that “no calls for bid on leases in the Laurentian Channel will ever be issued in support of the long-term conservation of the area.”

It appears DFO did not meet that goal.

A summary of the meeting e-mailed out on July 10, 2017, stated that “there was some discussion about Laurentian Channel but not in detail or in any conclusive way; there was agreement to have an ongoing dialogue.”

Fitzgerald of Sierra Club said in an interview with The Narwhal that it was “quite startling” to see the number of senior representatives who met with DFO on June 27.

“I actually didn’t realize they were so interested in this piece of marine seascape,” she said. “But I think to them, it’s about their right to all the oceans on the East Coast of Canada. That’s the only reason they would assemble such a cast of characters.”

CAPP’s submission claims no serious impacts on marine mammals

Following the publication of the draft regulations on June, there was a 30-day window for public comment.

On July 21, three days before the window closed, CAPP sent its final comments to DFO. Signed by Paul Barnes — the director of the Atlantic Canada and Arctic regions for the association — the letter outlines CAPP’s argument for why it thinks that seismic and drilling activity in the region wouldn’t be seriously harmful to species and ecosystems.

Specifically, CAPP emphasized there have been no documented marine mammal injuries or deaths as a result of seismic surveys. In addition, it noted that impacts of drilling and production at two large offshore sites in Atlantic Canada have had negligible impacts on sediment and water quality monitoring.

Rodolphe Devillers, geography professor at Memorial University of Newfoundland and lead researcher at the Marine Geomatics Research Lab, reviewed CAPP’s final submission and said in an interview with The Narwhal that the facts presented appear accurate. However, he added the caveat:  “It’s just always a question of what facts they select in their letters and not others.”

For example, it’s true that there haven’t been any documented marine mammal mortalities as a consequence of seismic surveys, as it’s very difficult to relate deaths to specific sources.

It’s also consistent with the conservation objectives listed in the federal government’s draft regulations, with a particular focus on preventing “human-induced mortality.”

But as noted by Devillers, the overarching objective of the MPA is to “conserve biodiversity through the protection of key species and their habitats, ecosystem structure and function, and through scientific research.”

To him, and many other ocean scientists, that overarching objective requires the prevention of a wide range of disturbance and harms, not just deaths — something largely unknown due to a lack of scientific studies in the region.

“We do know as scientists that seismic activities do have a number of impacts, which can be loss of hearing, challenges to feed and communicate … Those affect the primary objective of the MPA.”

Seismic testing ‘serious’ pollutant: scientists

A 2013 report by Dalhousie University biologist Lindy Weilgart concluded that at least 37 marine species have been shown to be impacted by seismic testing, and that airgun noise “must be considered a serious marine environmental pollutant.”

On June 22, 2017 — incidentally, a single day before the government released its draft regulations — an article was published in Nature Ecology & Evolution that concluded seismic surveys can double or triple the death rates of zooplankton within a 1.2 kilometre radius. The authors wrote: “Significant impacts on plankton by anthropogenic sources have enormous implications for ocean ecosystem structure and health.”

Devillers voiced similar concerns about CAPP’s positioning on potential contamination.

In the final submission, CAPP said that no drill waste or petrogenic hydrocarbons have ever been detected “outside the 500 metre safety zone during drilling or operations phases” of nearby offshore projects. But Devillers noted that “even if it’s within 100 metres, it’s an impact on the ecosystem.”

“Sometimes things go wrong,” he said. “How willing are we to accept that things can go wrong? Even if it’s one chance in 50 years or something, that’s not acceptable. And they cannot guarantee that this will not happen.”

A simple fix could set clear standard for marine protected areas

A simple solution to all of this would be to amend the Oceans Act to prohibit all extractive activities in Marine Protected Areas, said Linda Nowlan, staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law.

Currently, each distinct protected area  is governed by an individual regulation, which can prohibit and allow certain activities. That’s why the Laurentian Channel Marine Protected Area allows oil and gas activities while the nearby St. Anns Bank Marine Protected Area banned them.

In comparison, Canada’s “National Marine Conservation Areas” — which include Ontario’s Fathom Five National Marine Park and Quebec’s Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park — have a blanket prohibition of oil and gas activities.

Nowlan suggested the federal government should take advantage of its ongoing amendments to the Oceans Act to prohibit all “harmful activities,” including oil, gas and mineral exploration and development.

“It sets the bar from the start so industries can’t go into negotiations and whittle down protection, which is what seems to have happened in Laurentian Channel,” Nowlan said.

The government is expected to release the final regulations this year.

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

Canadian conservation groups are celebrating the proposed creation of an Arctic marine conservation area in Lancaster Sound, a region long-threatened by the possibility of exploratory oil and gas drilling.

Shell Canada first applied for exploration rights in Lancaster Sound in 1971 and although the related permits were set to expire by 1979 and despite a moratorium on drilling in the region, they inexplicably remained listed on the public registry of active permits.

Those permits, which granted Shell offshore rights in the waters of Baffin Bay, frustrated a decades-long fight to protect the biodiversity rich Lancaster Sound, an area famous for its large populations of narwhal, beluga, walrus and polar bear.

In April Ecojustice on behalf of the World Wildlife Federation (WWF) filed a suit against Shell Canada and the federal government. Ecojustice maintained the expired permits, whose geographical boundaries overlapped proposed protected areas, should be struck down.

On the eve of World Oceans Day, Shell Canada announced it was voluntarily releasing the permits and granted the land to the federal government via the Nature Conservancy of Canada. The federal government in turn announced a five-year plan to establish more ocean protections including the creation of the Lancaster Sound Marine Conservation Area.

Canada is far behind other western nations when it comes to ocean protection. According to the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, only 0.11 per cent of Canada’s ocean area is protected from industrial activity. Canada recently announced a plan to raise that figure to 10 per cent, which would bring the country in line with conservation benchmarks achieved in the U.S. and the U.K.

Devon Page, executive director of Ecojustice, told DeSmog Canada he is very pleased with today’s announcement.

"With Shell giving up its permits, a major hurdle to the creation of the Lancaster Sound National Marine Conservation Area has been lifted," he said. 

"That said, the obvious next step would be to move forward with the finalization of the NMCA and making sure that the boundaries proposed by the Qikiqtani Inuit Association and supported by our client are adopted. The Arctic is an incredibly unique and biodiverse region and protecting Lancaster Sound, along with other important marine areas, is essential if Canada is to meet its commitments to protect coastal and marine areas."

The Qikiqtani Inuit Association's proposed boundaries for a marine conservation area based on traditional knowledge of the land. Over the years successive federal governments refused to draft marine conservation plans that aligned with local Inuit boundaries because of Shell’s permits in the proposed zone.

In a previous interview Page said the fact that climate change is opening up the Arctic to oil exploration is a “troubling irony.”

“We need to do whatever we can to stop full-scale exploration of the Arctic,” he said, adding that despite major international climate treaties like the Paris Agreement “you can see no change in behaviour from the oil industry.”

David Miller, president and CEO of WWF, said having a marine sanctuary in Lancaster Sound has been a goal of his organization for many years.

“Lancaster Sound is an incredibly ecologically rich area: it’s rich from the perspective of those who value nature as a critical part of our world that we need to support. It’s also rich from perspective of local people who get their sustenance and basic way of life from the same natural bounty that is there,” Miller told DeSmog Canada in an April interview.

“As the arctic warms quite rapidly we really need to preserve areas like Lancaster Sound and conserve them so ice-dependent species — which will have areas with less lengthy sea ice — will have chance of surviving.”

“There’s no question that climate change is opening up the Arctic to exploration that couldn’t have been dreamed of 15 years ago — not just oil and gas but any resource development on an industrial scale,” Miller said.

Shell gives Up 40-yr fight for expired #arctic permits, opening conservation area https://t.co/4AqMCsEgFZ #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/4wDF8LZsZ2

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) June 9, 2016

“From an environmental perspective the existence of potentially active permits adjacent to or within boundaries to marine conservation area creates huge obstacle to the potential for creating marine conservation areas.”

Ian Miron, staff counsel with Ecojustice said the legal challenge was “certainly not the first step in this process.”

The government failed for years to explain why the permits were being treated as valid, Miron told DeSmog Canada.

“These permits are under the jurisdiction of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada,” he said. “On their face the permits were scheduled to expire in 1979.”

Image: Lancaster sound. Photo: Christopher Debicki via Pew Charitable Trusts

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

When you think about what Canada is known for on the international stage these days, fighting climate change is not exactly near the top of the list. Without credible plans from Ottawa and many provincial capitals, Canada’s climate-fighting reputation is up in smoke or, as the Economist put it, the moose has lost its sunglasses and Canada is “uncool.”

But when you look beyond the headlines, there is another story — one in which the vast majority of Canadian communities are committed to fighting climate change.

DeSmog Canada reached out to experts across Canada to get their opinions on which municipalities are leading the fight against climate change. Immediately, it became clear we could easily list Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton or Vancouver and tell great stories about these innovative cities.

Vancouver, for instance, nominated most often by the experts, is reforming its bylaws, permits, regulations and policies in an effort to become the greenest city in the world by 2020. Whether it is energy, food, grants, efficiency, jobs, bikes, procurement or construction, Vancouver has a sustainability policy, subsidy or project. Add in the work Surrey, Burnaby and the City of North Vancouver are doing to evolve from Vancouver bedroom communities into sustainable urban environments and the story could start and end in the Lower Mainland.

But we wanted to look beyond the big players to find the other guys — the innovative communities you probably haven’t heard about yet. Drum roll please …

Dawson Creek, B.C.

Dawson Creek, at "Mile 0" on the Alaska Highway, sits in the middle of B.C.'s natural gas fields. Photo: Shawn via Flickr.

Way up in the Peace Country, 400 kilometres northeast of Prince George, lays Dawson Creek — a city of fewer than 12,000 people in the heart of British Columbia’s natural gas fields.

During the last decade, the town has installed solar hot-water heaters on municipal buildings, changed its building-code bylaws to require every new house to be built “solar ready,” started charging a $100-per-tonne levy on greenhouse gas emissions and channeled the cash into a carbon fund, developed an anti-idling campaign, embraced a nearby wind farm and in 2012 became Canada’s first Solar City.

During this sustainability boom, the region also saw a massive influx of development from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, of natural gas wells. Fracking requires large amounts of water, combined with chemicals, used to blast the natural gas from the shale rock formations. Faced with repeat drought years, Dawson Creek partnered with Shell to build a water-reclamation plant to provide water to industry and preserve the town’s drinking water.

"Now we have about 4,000 cubic metres of water a day going through this effluent plant that can be used for fracking instead of surface water or the city's treated water," former mayor Mike Bernier told Postmedia.

Guelph, Ontario

A footbridge in Riverside Park, Guelph. Photo: Patty O'Hearn Kickham via Flickr.

Guelph, Ont., located 90 kilometres west of Toronto, was the winner of the 2014 Sustainable Communities Award for Energy from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. The city, population 120,000, has leveraged Ontario’s green energy policies to develop close to 1,000 solar installations and has cut emissions by capturing methane from the landfill and composting organics.

Since 2006, Guelph has cut emissions per capita by 17 per cent. (The city was also helped by Ontario’s policy of phasing out coal-fired power plants). Guelph is aiming to have two district-energy systems operational by this year or next to provide hot or cool water from a central plant to customers, reducing emissions even more.

“By 2031 we’re expecting to add approximately 50 per cent more in population and a per capita reduction of 60 per cent in greenhouse gas emissions,” says mayor Karen Farbridge.

Varennes, Quebec     

The Saint-Joachim Chapel was built in 1832 in Varennes, Quebec. Now the city is leading the way to the low-carbon future with several technology research centres calling Varennes home. Photo: Gilles Douaire via Flickr.

Varennes, Que., located about 25 kilometres from Montreal, is home to a number of technology research centres, including Hydro-Québec’s IREQ, CanmetENERGY and the National Institute for Scientific Research. It is also the home office of the biggest biofuel producer in Canada, Greenfield Ethanol.

Greenfield is building an ethanol plant in Varennes using non-recyclable, non-compostable waste and an anaerobic digester, using organic waste from the surrounding area to produce biogas. 

The City of Varennes is replacing its city lights with energy efficient LEDs, using electric cars (with seven charging stations in the city) and building a new net-zero library — the first in net-zero building in Canada.

“Its yearly energy consumption will be zero thanks to geothermal technology, 700 solar panels, radiating floors, solar walls and smart lighting,” says mayor Martin Damphouse.

T’Sou-ke First Nation, B.C.

T'Sou-ke Chief Gordon Planes amongst a sea of solar panels. Photo: David Dodge, Green Energy Futures

About 40 kilometres west of Victoria on Vancouver Island is the T’Sou-ke First Nation. It is a tiny community of 250 members (150 on reserve), but it has a claim to fame as British Columbia’s “most solar-powered community.”

In 2009, through B.C.’s Solar Community Program, the T’Sou-ke Nation installed 75 kilowatts of solar power and now sells excess power back to the grid. All homes on the reserve have solar hot-water systems and have had energy-efficiency retrofits. The community also built a greenhouse and runs a community garden, selling extra produce to roughly 30 stores on southern Vancouver Island.

“When you think about the T’Sou-ke Nation, this tiny group on the edge of Vancouver Island, developing probably the most solar-intensive community in Canada, it is quite an achievement,” says Andrew More, T’Sou-ke solar program manager.

Most recently, the T’Sou-ke Nation became a partner in a $750-million wind-power project that will produce enough energy to power 30,000 homes.

Bridgewater, Nova Scotia   

Bridgewater Farmers' Market. Photo: John McCarthy via Flickr.

Bridgewater, located about 100 kilometers down the south shore of Nova Scotia from Halifax, has transformed its community’s energy system. Bolstered by provincial policies, the town of more than 8,000, has replaced street lights with LED lights, conducted energy efficiency retrofits to municipal buildings, introduced an anti-idling program, changed land-use policies and started buying locally installed solar power.

As a result of the major overhaul, Bridgewater reduced energy consumption from its town’s facilitates in 2012 by 15 per cent from 2007 levels and exceeded its goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 15 per cent.

“I take particular pride in knowing that our town has done an exemplary job in dealing with sustainability planning,” says Mayor Carroll Publicover.

Main Photo: Dawson Creek grain elevator. Credit: Shannon 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 Tuesday, Shell Canada’s president earned praise when she said her company would welcome federal greenhouse gas regulations on the oil and gas sector. Then on Friday, Shell had its controversial Jackpine oilsands mine expansion plans approved by Ottawa.

With fears riding high over landlocked western oil blocked by limited pipeline capacity, it is somewhat surprising to hear a major oil company come out in support of increasing costs. However, interviews with experts and Shell Canada reveal Shell’s expansion plans will likely not be hindered by federal carbon prices — and they may just benefit.

Oilsands Operators Can Afford Carbon Prices

Andrew Leach, energy economist at the University of Alberta, has done some simple calculations on what a carbon price would mean for oil companies. If a company were to pay a $30 to $50 price on a tonne of carbon emissions, they would subtract it from roughly $400 to $500 worth of profit, Leach wrote on his blog.

“The realization people need to have is these (oilsands) projects would probably be more resilient to carbon pricing than most people think,” Leach said in an interview with DeSmog Canada.

$200 a Tonne and Oilsands Growth?

In 2009, M.K. Jaccard and Associates conducted economic modelling for the Pembina Institute and David Suzuki Foundation on the impact of carbon pricing on the Canadian economy. The models showed the federal government needed a carbon price of $100 by 2020 to meet their Copenhagen Accord emissions targets of a 17 per cent reduction from 2005 levels by 2020. Going one step further, for Canada to do its part to help keep global temperature rise below of an average of 2 degrees, the models showed Canada needed a $200 carbon price by 2020.  

Even with a $200 carbon price, there is “continued expansion of oilsands operations in Alberta, but it occurs with large-scale use of carbon capture and storage,” said the report, Climate Leadership, Economic Prosperity.

Shell’s Carbon Capture Dreams

In her speech to the Economic Club of Canada, Lorraine Mitchelmore, president of Shell Canada said:

“Federal CO2 regulations will add to the pressure to innovate and will signal to the world that Canada is stepping up to do its part."

Shell is building the first carbon capture and sequestration project in the oilsands for its upgrader near Fort Saskatchewan, Alta.

The company has received federal and provincial money and will also be able to resell the captured C02 for enhanced oil recovery operations. But with a stronger price on carbon emissions, their Quest carbon capture project will yield a greater return on their $1.35-billion investment and could position them to resell their technology if demand for it increases.

A Shell Price?

By introducing new federal regulations to increase the price on carbon emissions, the federal government would be playing catch up to Shell’s established business planning.

Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Shell Canada’s parent company, has for roughly a decade been using a carbon price of $40 a tonne when sizing up potential projects, as a precautionary step to make sure projects make long-term economic sense.

“It’s one of the lenses we would use to stress test a project,” David Williams, Shell Canada spokesperson, said.

Shell joins a growing list of major oil companies and corporations incorporating a carbon price into their long-term planning.

It is likely any starting federal price on carbon emissions aligns with Shell’s planning. The last public announcement by the Alberta government looked to bump their carbon levy up to $40 a tonne for heavy emitters.

The federal government has been promising new regulations since pulling out of the Kyoto Accord in 2012. Back then, they promised to be “working toward draft regulations for 2013.” As 2013 comes to a close, new regulations still have not been introduced.

Kudos For Now

In the polarized conversation around climate policy, Ed Whittingham, executive director of sustainable energy think tank the Pembina Institute, says Shell should be congratulated for welcoming federal carbon pricing.

Shell’s $40-a-tonne carbon price aligns with Pembina’s starting point for carbon pricing, Whittingham said.

“Although Pembina and Shell might not agree on all the points we want in the regulations, the important thing is for the federal government to move forward and introduce these long overdue regs,” he said.

Image Credit: Pembina Institute 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.

An oil and gas giant drew unusual praise from a sustainable energy think tank last week for its “common sense” call for predictable environmental regulation.

In a speech to the Economic Club of Canada, Shell Canada president Lorraine Mitchelmore said the company would “welcome” new regulations — regulations the federal government has consistently failed to provide.

“The real choice is to lead in both energy and environment and to succeed as a country — or not,” she said. “You may accuse me of wanting it both ways, but I believe that one will only come with the other. That is the world in which we are living today. That is what I believe Canadians and the world are asking us to do.”

Ed Whittingham, president of the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based sustainable energy think tank, applauded the executive’s candour on the issue.

“Her common sense comments were a breath of fresh air in the very polarized debate over oilsands development,” he told Postmedia’s Mike De Souza. “Let’s hope she inspires others in the energy sector, and in government, to also acknowledge that the public’s environmental concerns are valid and deserve addressing.”

This is not the first time industry has shown a willingness to participate in the climate change discussion that outstrips that of the federal government. Early in the year, Bloomberg News reported that companies such as Exxon Mobile, Total SA and Cenovus were feeling frustrated by the lack of clear direction on this pressing issue.

“At least with a tax, you know what you’re getting,” Guy Turner, Bloomberg's head of economics and commodities, said in an interview from London. “The cost is in effect fixed. Industry will be able to lobby for a rate of tax that it feels it can wear.”

The companies also expressed that a carbon tax would bring Canada in line with established European regulations, thereby opening new markets.

Meanwhile, in March of this year, a study by Ontario-based Sustainable Prosperity found many companies were already factoring a hypothetical “shadow carbon tax” of between $15 and $68 per tonne into their future projections.

Oil and gas regulation in Canada has been a long time coming.

"Successive Conservative environment ministers have pledged to deliver comprehensive climate change policies for nearly eight years, but have missed their deadlines to deliver a plan for the oil and gas sector,” De Souza wrote. “Mitchelmore said if new federal regulations were introduced, they would pressure companies to develop technologies, while sending a message to the world that Canada is doing its part to fight climate change."

The federal government promised new regulation when they pulled out of the Kyoto Accord in 2012 to the shock and disappointment of the international community. Back then the government promised to be “working toward draft regulations for 2013.”

Now, as 2013 comes to a close, Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq has argued the implementation of new environmental regulations is too complex because it requires the cooperation of the provinces and territories.

“We want to get this right for Canada and when I’m ready to release this information that will be released publicly,” she said in response to questions from opposition New Democrats and Liberals at a parliamentary committee.

In October, Environment Canada estimated that with current measures in place greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise. By 2020 they will reach 734 megatonnes, well above Canada’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 612 megatonnes.

Alberta already has a carbon tax of $15 per tonne, although critics say the amount will have to rise significantly to be an effective deterrent against sky-rocketing emissions from the oil and gas industry in the province’s oilsands.

“What we know from other jurisdictions is that putting a price on pollution spurs innovation, creates certainty and can provide billions of dollars for the development of needed alternatives… ,” wrote environmental campaigner Tzeporah Berman this spring in The Globe and Mail. ”Most importantly it works to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are already degrading our life-support systems.”

Image Credit: Kris Krug 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.