On June 23, the Federal Court of Appeal struck down the Harper government’s approval of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline on account of failing to properly consult with adversely affected First Nations.

Many environmental and Indigenous groups cited the ruling as a win, but buried in the decision is a legal interpretation that upholds former Primer Minister Stephen Harper’s changes to environmental assessment law in the country.

Some argue this interpretation of the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) will undermine the ability for the public to challenge the legality of environmental assessment reports for future projects, such as Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline and TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline.

The precedent established through that June 23 ruling means it’s now exclusively up to the federal cabinet — rather than the courts — to determine whether an environmental assessment report was properly conducted, meaning that the public can no longer challenge reports on the grounds of perceived incompleteness or negligence.

As a result, federal cabinet may be missing key perspectives while making decisions on major resource projects.

“That cabinet is empowered to make these decisions with the public being denied any kind of role or option is, at the very least, anti-democratic and at its worst you could even look at it as creating a kind of despotic situation around these issues,” says Chris Genovali, executive director of the Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

Raincoast Conservation Foundation Applying to Supreme Court For Review of Interpretation

On September 21, Ecojustice applied on behalf of Raincoast to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal.

If leave to appeal is granted — which fewer than 10 per cent of applicants receive — the country’s highest court will proceed to determine whether the Federal Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation of Sections 29 to 31 of the new CEAA.

Barry Robinson, lawyer and national program director for Ecojustice, says that since the former CEAA was introduced in 1992, the public could challenge reports on the grounds that there were perceived errors or omissions.

In the case of the Northern Gateway, such alleged errors included the review panel not considering the impacts of the project on humpback whales and other at-risk species, as well as evidence that diluted bitumen would sink in water and seriously complicate clean-up efforts.

“Most of the cases said that what you need is a legally prepared report before you make any decision based on that report,” Robinson says. “Just in this Gateway case was the first time the court said ‘well, actually, only the governor in council [or federal cabinet] can decide whether the report was legally prepared.’ We just kind of went ‘that doesn’t sound consistent with past case law.’ ”

How Harper’s Changes to Environmental Laws Are Being Leveraged by #Pipeline Companies https://t.co/sJcCDAu7rf @james_m_wilt #cdnpoli #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 14, 2016

Kinder Morgan Already Referenced Precedent in Attempts to Dismiss Challenges

Robinson notes that in a bit of an odd twist, the courts spent a significant chunk of time interpreting Sections 29 to 31 of the new CEAA but ended up not actually applying it to Northern Gateway as there were other transitional provisions that applied.

“In fact, throughout the whole thing, the court was analyzing the wrong section,” he says.

But Genovali says that we’ve already started to see the fallout from the setting of the precedent.

Days after the Enbridge decision was announced, Kinder Morgan introduced a motion referencing the interpretation in order to dismiss a lawsuit also filed by Ecojustice on behalf of Raincoast over the National Energy Board’s allegedly flawed final report on its Trans Mountain pipeline (specifically on whether the Species at Risk Act was violated by the NEB’s actions with regards to southern resident killer whales, a critically endangered species).

Then, last month, the Federal Court of Appeal relied on the decision to deny an application by the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation over a similar issue in regards to Kinder Morgan.

“It immediately struck us as soon as this came down that this was something that had to be challenged and if we can’t get this reversed through this appeal I think the Canadian public needs to press upon the Trudeau government that they have to rectify this,” Genovali says.

“This is a vestige of the Harper era. I think if we take the prime minister and his government’s statements at face value then they need to do something about this because this would appear to contravene all of the values that he articulated during the campaign and continues to speak to.”

Robinson says that it usually takes between four to six months for the Supreme Court to decide whether to grant leave to appeal.

Given recent history, it seems likely that pipeline companies will continue to refer to the precedent until then. If the court decides not to grant leave to appeal, the precedent will be maintained and cabinet will continue to be the sole arbiters of whether an EA report was legally prepared or not.

Image: Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline construction. Photo: Transmountain.com

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 Mitchell Beer, which originally appeared on GreenPAC.

When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and provincial/territorial premiers meet in Vancouver on Thursday, they’ll be searching for agreement on the pan-Canadian climate framework that Trudeau promised to introduce within 90 days of the 2015 United Nations climate summit in Paris.

It’s a big enough, ambitious enough agenda. But the real question facing First Ministers, and the elephant in the room that will dominate their deliberations, is bigger still. It comes in two parts:

What kind of economy do we want for Canada in the 21st century? (Because it’s 2016!)

And however that’s answered, is the plan realistic against anything we know about the future shape of global energy use?

The Fossils Come Out to Play

Canada-wide carbon pricing is one of the high-profile items on the First Ministers’ agenda, and there’s been a lot of advance positioning in the weeks leading up to the meeting.

"This is not right for Saskatchewan, and may I say, I don't think it's right for the country right now," Premier Brad Wall told CBC in mid-February. "The last thing we need right now is a tax increase or a new federal carbon tax or, frankly, a provincial carbon levy. Now's not the right time for any of those things."

Wall’s comments were eerily reminiscent of ex-prime minister Stephen Harper’s statement in mid-December 2014, when the oil price crash was just beginning to pick up steam: “Under the current circumstances of the oil and gas sector, it would be crazy—it would be crazy economic policy to do unilateral penalties on that sector,” Harper told the House of Commons. “We’re clearly not going to do that.”

You would almost think Wall was setting up for a provincial election in mid-April. Or that the federal Conservatives were on their way into a leadership campaign, with Wall being touted as a possible candidate.

Nah. Couldn’t be.

Reality Bites

At least a handful of premiers seem likely to try to defend or resurrect the fossil industry during the First Ministers’ meeting. The underlying issue, though, is whether that industry has any prospect of success in a world of constrained carbon, low oil prices and surging clean energy technologies.

Consider these news snippets, most of them from the last couple of weeks:

• Now that the world’s governments have adopted 1.5°C as the long-term limit on average global warming — with Canada playing a lead role at a crucial point in Paris negotiations — the available carbon budget for the world’s fossil producers is even more limited. Even in a 2.0° scenario, most of Canada’s oilsands production and all Arctic oil and gas would be unburnable. It would have to stay in the ground. At 1.5°, small island states will actually have a fighting chance of surviving the wrath of rising seas. But the remaining “atmospheric space” for future carbon emissions is essentially cut in half, according to a paper earlier this month in the journal Nature Climate Change.  
• At a major oil and gas conference in Houston last week, Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi had a stark warning for high-priced fossil producers: If you can’t compete, get out of the market. “It sounds hard, and unfortunately it is,” he said. But “cutting low-cost production to subsidize higher-cost supplies only delays an inevitable reckoning.” Al-Naimi wasn’t pointing a finger at Canada, but given the cost of diluted bitumen production, he might as well have been.  
• International auditing and consulting firm Deloitte forecast that one-third of the world’s fossil producers may not survive 2016, and since September, analysts have been projecting that the oil crash could last through 2018.  
• Even if fossil prices begin to recover toward the end of the decade, the next crisis will be on the near horizon. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, electric cars will cost less to own and operate than conventional vehicles, as early as 2022. The ensuing rush to cleaner, cheaper mobility will be enough to take another couple of million barrels of daily demand out of global oil markets, triggering the next price crash.

That’s just a small sample of a daily surge in reporting and analysis, all pointing to a major industrial transformation in Canada’s immediate future.

The Economy We Want: First Ministers Can Have It All

If you believe that resource development, specifically fossil development, is Canada’s only path to prosperity, the future looks bleak. But the oil price crash is also the opportunity of a lifetime to build the economy we want.

Clean energy already created more direct employment in Canada than the oilsands in 2014, before the oil price crash began to hit. And at the Paris conference, the Canadian Labour Congress and Climate Action Network Canada co-hosted a workshop that pointed to the million climate jobs the country could create over the next five years. It’ll just take the right vision, supported by the right infrastructure investments.

Which means that if they make the right choices, First Ministers really can have it all.

They can embark on a grand nation-building project (somewhat more decentralized than they may have thought) to craft a 21st century energy economy.

They can meet and exceed Canada’s current international climate commitment that calls for a paltry 30 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030.

And they can create a million person-years of climate-related employment by 2020.

That sounds like a pretty good starting point for discussion when the First Ministers get together. It might even be the right fodder for a triumphant closing communiqué.

Mitchell Beer is President of Ottawa-based Smarter Shift and curator of The Energy Mix, a free, thrice-weekly digest on climate, energy, and low-carbon solutions. He represented Sierra Club Canada as an accredited observer at the 2015 United Nations climate summit in Paris.

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

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.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper’s government issued 14 permits for work on the $9 billion Site C dam during the writ period of the last election — a move that was offside according to people familiar with the project and the workings of the federal government.

“By convention, only routine matters are dealt with after the writ is dropped,” said Harry Swain, the chair of the Joint Review Panel that reviewed the Site C dam. “Permits and licences are only issued when a government considers the matter to be non-controversial and of no great public importance.”

Swain served for 22 years in the federal government, ending as deputy minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and later Industry. In an exclusive interview with DeSmog Canada last year, Swain said the B.C. government shouldn’t have moved ahead with construction on the dam until the demand case became clearer.

Federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May noticed all of the Site C permits had been issued in late September, just weeks before October’s federal election.   “They saw that they were unlikely to form government again so they began making appointments and decisions during the election,” May told DeSmog Canada. “Usually during the writ period the government operates as a care-taker government, doing what’s absolutely necessary.”   Land clearing has begun on the dam, while opposition has continued to grow. First Nations are challenging the project in court over treaty issues and a protest camp was set up in the construction zone in December. (In Photos: The Destruction of the Peace River Valley for the Site C Dam)   “These permits are really quite distressing,” May said. “You get two departments issuing all these permits in a two-week period. It looks orchestrated by the former government.”

‘The Honour of the Crown is at Stake’

A broad coalition of organizations from across Canada has called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to halt construction of the Site C dam by refusing to issue further federal permits needed for construction of the project, which will flood 23,000 hectares of land along 107-kilometres of the Peace River Valley.   An open letter from the coalition urges Trudeau to rescind all permits and to re-examine the previous government’s approval of the dam, which was given despite the review panel’s finding that it would infringe upon the treaty rights under Treaty 8.   “It’s bad enough to have disputed lands devastated by damage like this. But to have actual treaty rights and treaty-protected activities essentially removed … the honour of the Crown is at stake in something like this,” May said. “The Crown chose to ignore a finding in the review that these treaty rights were going to be irreparably harmed.”   May argued that, given its commitment to a new relationship with Canada’s First Nations, the federal government shouldn’t issue any further permits.   “They can’t undo permits that have already been issued or replace forests that have already been clear-cut, but any future permits need to have a very huge hold until treaty rights issues are resolved,” she said. 

“The review panel’s report clearly stated that not only was there massive environmental damage that could not be mitigated but that the erosion of treaty rights could not be mitigated. That’s an astonishing conclusion. Especially since the panel also found that the public interest case was pretty muddy.”

BC Hydro in Court for Injunction Against Protest Camp Monday

BC Hydro is scheduled to go to court on Monday to seek an injunction to have the protest camp removed. Documents filed in that case focus on financial issues, with BC Hydro arguing a delay in construction will cost it money, while expert witnesses for the protesters argue that a one-year delay will actually save taxpayers $267 million because power demand forecasts have fallen.   BC Hydro has always argued the financial argument for the project is strong because of growing power demand, but economists and the crown corporation’s former CEO Marc Eliesen have challenged that and called for a third-party assessment.

Site C Dam Slated For Audit

Meantime, B.C.’s Auditor-General stated this week that the Site C dam has been identified as a project needing an audit, but no timeline has been set for that work.   “As a British Columbia ratepayer it’s very clear that Site C is likely to put British Columbia into a negative economic situation, at least at the beginning of its lifespan without any benefit to British Columbians,” May said. “It’s for the LNG industry.”   Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, added his voice to the call for a delay in Site C construction in the legislature on Thursday, citing significant risk to taxpayers and the provincial economy.   “Site C should have been subject to the B.C. Utilities Commission, but the government felt it would slow down their political agenda too much,” he said. “It is risky and foolish. British Columbians are going to be paying for this project for decades.”   Weaver argued that in the absence of a vastly expanded LNG industry, the power from the Site C dam won’t be needed — an argument DeSmog Canada has explored in depth.

Wind Energy Association Driven Out of Province

Weaver also warned on Thursday that proceeding with Site C is actively driving clean energy investment out of the province.   Two weeks ago the Canadian Wind Energy Association announced it was closing up shop in B.C. because of a lack of opportunity to develop new wind projects in the province. Instead, the association will focus on Alberta and Saskatchewan.

“We obviously have limited resources, and we’re going to focus our efforts on those markets which provide the greatest opportunities in the short term to see more wind energy deployed in the country,” CanWEA president Robert Hornung told Business in Vancouver.

Hornung added: “While B.C. has tremendous untapped potential for wind energy … it’s also true that, at this time, there’s no vision of short-term opportunities emerging in B.C.”

Industrial demand for power in B.C. is falling due to the closure of mines and pulp and paper mills, both big electricity consumers. And with the Site C dam on the books, BC Hydro doesn’t anticipate any calls for power until 2030 — which means the prospects of new wind power projects have effectively been killed.

"Rather than let the market take the risk for energy infrastructure projects, this government is using billions of taxpayer dollars to get Site C ‘past the point of no return,’ ” Weaver said.

George Heyman, the NDP critic for the green economy, told the Georgia Straight this week that the government is failing to support renewable energy.

"That's a problem for development of jobs and industry in every corner of B.C.," Heyman said. 

"And it's a problem for British Columbians who think we should be taking advantage of dropping tech prices and advancing technology in both wind and solar and other forms of energy production — instead of throwing all of our eggs into the basket of one big dam in Northeast B.C. with a price tag that's likely to go up steeply in the coming years."

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

Image: Construction on the Site C Dam by Garth Lenz.

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

This article originally appeared on Climate Access.

Those who work on climate change were both chuffed and chagrined by its role in Canada’s federal election campaign, which peaked last week with the victory of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau and defeat of Conservative incumbent Stephen Harper.

“The environment” — a catch-all concept that often encompasses concern about climate change — consistently ranked close to economy and healthcare on voters' list of top priorities. Oilsands and climate change issues took up nearly a quarter of the first leaders debate, commanding more than twice the airtime they did in 2011. Several media outlets ran editorials calling on all parties to take a strong stance on reducing GHG emissions or put a price on carbon.

To quote professor and commentator George Hoberg, “energy and environmental issues have become central to Canadian electoral politics.”

Despite all of this, climate change didn’t have a significant impact on the election’s outcome. Fundamentally this was a campaign about values where action on global warming was bundled into a broader set of aspirations and ideas that Canadians said yes to on October 19th. 

The election of Canada’s new prime minister is an important case study in the powerful potential of values-based messaging. Where the Conservative campaign sought to preserve the status quo and motivate voters with threats of an unstable or unsafe future, the Liberal campaign (and to a different extent, the New Democrats) mobilized Canadians with a vision of change centred on honesty, inclusion and fairness.

Of course, the timing couldn’t have been better. Much has been said about why Canadians’ were ready to bid farewell to one of their longer-standing leaders — corruption, fiscal mismanagement, deepening degrees of intolerance and an overt contempt for basic democratic principles being among them. Under Harper’s rule, Canada became a global pariah on climate change (the dark twin to its role as international cheerleader for the oilsands); even members of the Conservative base were beginning to question his judgment. Voters traditionally divided by ideology found common ground in their disapproval of Harper’s approach to governing, particularly his divisive tenor.

In this context, the fact that Trudeau wasn’t very scientific about how his climate plan would set him above other parties didn’t matter. Why would it, given most Canadians support emission reduction targets but can’t say what a good one looks like or how to achieve it. Election-time focus groups have been clear that Canadians rarely track the policy fine print; they’re lured in by a resonant vision. Trudeau’s generally progressive position on climate change was just one example of what made his party a desirable alternative. And for many — including those who supported strategic voting and ABC (Anything But Conservative) campaigns — what he presented was good enough.

At Climate Access, we regularly advise climate practitioners on using common values to articulate a vision of a better future, as well as the steps towards getting there. It’s a delicate approach that has the potential to come off idealistic or woo-woo if not executed thoughtfully. Certainly not for the risk-averse (neither was Trudeau’s comment about growing the economy “not from the top-down … but from the heart outwards”). But done well, values-based messaging that taps shared aspirations around fairness, equality and innovation, for example, lays the ground for the specific prescriptions or actions needed to achieve the vision. (Tools like Spitfire Strategies’ message box puts values at the start of every frame, and vision at the close.)

Values-focused campaigns can be stressful for people who work on policy. Many smart advocates grumbled over the fact that both the Liberals and NDP avoided getting specific on key aspects of their climate change strategies, including how they might price carbon and the future of oilsands development. “Instead, climate disruption was coded in symbols linked to the national social contract (between regions) and Canadian self-esteem that were much more suitable for the challenging parties,” Canadian pollster and activist John Willis told Climate Access.

This is partly why Trudeau focused on restoring the role (and independence) of science in decision making, as well as working more closely with the provinces and territories.

“The Liberal message about consulting the provinces and bringing the country together was probably the most effective message on climate (and wasn't really a message about climate policy per se, but rather a new style of collaborative governance),” communications specialist and instructor Andrew Frank told Climate Access.

Intelligent skeptics may be tempted to criticize these promises for focusing on process over outcomes. But then, commitments to restore Canada’s environmental laws and give First Nations and other stakeholders a meaningful seat at the table were also sought and received, and neither involve a scientific target.

The reality is the Trudeau-led Liberal campaign raised expectations — exponentially — about the kind of leadership, transparency and accountability Canadians can expect from their federal government going forward. And they made climate change a central indicator of their success on all of these fronts.

The opportunity for climate advocates now is to drive the details. Canadians need information on what smart climate policy looks like (i.e. a strong national action that will cut 1/3 of Canada’s carbon in the next 15 years, on the way to 100 per cent renewable energy by 2050), as well as ideas on how to measure our progress. Most people are still unclear on the connection between the oilsands and climate change (perhaps including the new prime minister, who has a mixed position on pipelines). Stories about Canada’s burgeoning renewable energy sector and job market need to be shared and promoted.

There is still lots of work to do, but it should be easier with Canadians agreeing that it’s time to do something.

Sutton Eaves is a communications strategist specializing in environmental issues. She is senior editor and strategist at Climate Access.

Image: Justin Trudeau 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.

This article originally appeared on Alternatives Journal.

“What is it about activists that they can’t even be optimistic for one day after a whole decade?” 

The disgust and disappointment on my 16 year olds face is somewhat heartbreaking as he pours cereal the morning after the Canadian election and surfs the comments on my Facebook page. I can only shake my head sadly and agree with him. 

Wouldn’t it be great to be fueled by hope instead of fear as the late Jack Layton urged us in his letter to the nation? For just a minute could we not take a deep breath and focus on all the things that we know will now change?

My sons have never known a Canada that was not under Stephen Harper's thumb. For the last decade they have listened to their parents shock and outrage over the weakening of our environmental laws, the lack of transparency, the erosion of democracy, the muzzling of scientists, the attack on environmental groups, the disregard for Canada’s constitution.

Along the way we tried to keep hope alive. We painted a picture for them of a Canada that valued evidence based policy. A Canada that led on the world stage to create critical international agreements like the Montreal Protocol. We talked about how lucky we are to live in a democracy and how important it was for us to participate, to organize and to vote. 

Together we watched the election results come in from coast to coast and I watched the hope and optimism on my sons face as he listened to Justin Trudeau’s acceptance speech. “Sunny ways!” We all yelled, half-hysterical and grinning ear to ear. “To the end of the Harper Era!” We cheered as we raised a glass in jubilant toast. 

Our exuberance made the next mornings conversation all that more painful. “Is he really no different?” “Why can’t people ever be hopeful?”

Why not indeed. 

Optimism is a particularly hard place for the activist community. It is by nature a community that draws from the margins: those that question the status quo are often the same people that the status quo doesn’t benefit. There are also those that are simply hard wired to question authority and then there are those who have immersed themselves in climate science and for whom incremental progress or half measures are simply seen as disastrous and even immoral.

In the case of this election and the thorough trouncing of the New Democratic Party there are also those in the activist community who were deeply invested in seeing an NDP or at least a Liberal minority that would give more space for an NDP agenda and with it the potential to strengthen the Liberals position on climate change. 

Let’s be clear — the Liberal Party Platform on climate change currently lacks strong emissions reductions targets at a critical moment in history when it is clear that the United Nations Climate Change Conference discussions are undergoing a dramatic cultural shift. For the first time in over a decade we are seeing a race to the top on climate policy. Countries are committing to aggressive targets and, like China with the announcement of their cap and trade system, they are putting in place real policies to meet those targets.

Canada will have to scramble to catch up after a decade of federal action and there is a considerable amount of fear and cynicism in the activist and scientific community about how our new Liberal government will rise to that challenge. Prime Minster-designate Justin Trudeau’s support for the Keystone pipeline and the cosy relationship between the Liberal campaign chair and Transcanada has not helped create optimism on the climate file. 

Of course, there is also the experience of our colleagues south of the border who remind us that without strong public campaigns the Obama administration would never have considered pulling permits for Arctic drilling and certainly would have approved the Keystone pipeline by now. The pull of the oil and gas industry is strong and while we now have the technology to build a cleaner, safer energy system, it is not easy for any elected leader to forego significant short term financial benefits from fossil fuel exploration let alone tell their constituents that the price of electricity and gas needs to go up.

The Liberal campaign slogan during this Federal election was ‘hope and hard work.’  In the coming months we will need a lot of both. Not just from our new government but also from ourselves. 

Let’s allow ourselves to hope. For our children and our health and the health of our communities. Over the past week I have forced myself not to fall into the pit of cynicism and to take a moment everyday to think of one thing that I care about that will change under this new government. It has had the effect of weights being lifted off my shoulders leaving me feel more spacious, more creative and free. 

A decade of attacks on our democracy, on those who can afford it the least and on our environment has left considerable baggage and scars. It will take a while to unpack it all and to trust my own government again. For my children I will try. If we allow ourselves to hope, Prime Minister-designate Justin Trudeau is making it easy for us. 

We aren’t getting platitudes and framing devoid of real promises and content. Within minutes we were getting renewed commitments to a new voting system, an inquiry into the missing and murdered Aboriginal women and an invitation to Green Party leader Elizabeth May and every Premier to attend the Paris Climate Summit as part of a team. We even got a day after press conference where our Prime Minister-designate…answered questions. 

The coming months will not be easy as we begin to establish a new relationship with our government and the international community but I am hopeful that we now have a government that will govern for all of Canadians best interests and not simply for one sector. I am hopeful that we now have a government that will choose science over politics, clean, safe energy systems over business as usual and perhaps even a government that will choose people over polluters. 

Tzeporah Berman BA MES LLD (honoris causa) is an environmental activist, an Adjunct Professor of Environmental Studies at York University, author of This Crazy Time: Living Our Environmental Challenge, published by Knopf Canada and the mother of two boys. 

Image: 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.

Boy oh boy, what a decade! Amiright?

I mean, think about it: back in 2006 when the Conservatives under Stephen Harper hit the political stage with a minority government the world was still all worked up over Brokeback Mountain.

Destiny’s Child was still a thing. So was the anthrax scare.

Needless to say, a lot has happened since those good ol’ bad ol’ days and things are bound to change around here, what with all the “Real Change” that’s being bandied about by our new top dog.

But before we’re off to the Liberal races, let’s take a fun moment to look back at how we laughed and how we cried with Stephen Harper.

View post on imgur.com

Senate Scandal

Let’s start with a recent one, shall we? The senate scandal.

This particular moment is fresh on Canadians' minds with the much-publicized Duffy trial in August bringing to light just how amuck Harper’s senators were running in Ottawa.

A nice little peek behind the redaction-curtain was offered to all Canadians through Duffy’s kind of hilariously poorly redacted documents. The documents show he was pretty much a Mother Hen-like busy body for the oil industry and anti-environmental attack dog Vivian Krause.

The Duffy affair, which involved a prodigal $90,000 cheque that Harper maintained he knew nothing about, put the PMO in the spotlight and raised pretty damning questions about culpability and who knew what when.

Harper’s right hand man, Nigel Wright, took responsibility for the cheque, becoming just another fall guy in a long list of Harper’s sacrificial lambs.

Overall, however, the senate scandal exposed the culture of corruption and waste embodied in senators Duffy, Patrick Brazeau, Marc Harb and Pamela Wallin who all charged Canadian taxpayers for ineligible living expenses.

A full investigation by the Auditor General found 30 senators were charging the public for things they shouldn’t have and nine of these individuals were referred to the police for further investigation. 

The senate scandal tainted the reputation of a government that, back in 2006, campaigned on “cleaning up government.”

Within months of being elected in 2006, Harper introduced the Federal Accountability Act (a watered-down version of his campaign promise) that sought to “begin the process of fixing the system…to clean up government.”

Harper went on to oversee one of the most corrupt senates in Canadian history. Whoops.

Robocall Scandal

On the scandal note, let’s also recall that Harper’s Federal Accountability Act was designed to “ensure that party nomination and leadership races are conducted in a fair, transparent, and democratic manner.”

But remember the freaking robocall scandal!?

In one of the most explicit attacks on democracy in Canadian history, and the most direct attack against actual electors, the Conservative party was accused of using automated and in-person phone calls to confuse the public about where they were supposed to vote. Other calls harassed voters with late-night calls that impersonated opposition parties.

An estimated 690,000 voters were targeted with these calls.

Several investigations were launched that found the calls targeted voters who indicated they were not voting Conservative.

But an Elections Canada investigation found that, even though some of these calls were made from a computer within Conservative party headquarters and that Conservative party staffers were refusing to cooperate with the investigation, there was not enough evidence to pursue full charges against the party.

But don’t worry, there’s a fall guy: while Harper consistently maintained he had no knowledge of the calls, Michel Sona, a twenty-something junior Conservative staffer at the time, was convicted of violating the Elections Canada Act by preventing electors from exercising their right to vote.

Sona was convicted this past August to nine months in prison plus 12 months probation. The judge in Sona’s case concluded the young man did not act alone, but did not rule on any other’s involvement.

In total, the outcome of 13 Conservative seats were called into question. And guess what? The Conservatives in the 2011 election secured their majority by 13 seats.

Enemies List

Perhaps because of the way he ran things (and his penchant for employing ‘fall guys’) Stephen Harper had a lot of enemies.

But no one knew about the existence of a formal list until a leaked internal e-mail prepared for incoming ministers during a cabinet shuffle in 2013 referencing “enemy stakeholders” appeared.

A second leaked e-mail showed the PMO reached out to different ministries asking for suggestions for the blacklist.

A source told the CBC that enemy examples were provided to ministerial aides and they included environmental groups, non-profit organizations and other civic or industry associations that dared to think differently than the Harper government.

Canadians, obviously, were excited about the prospect of being on such an exclusive list.

And although the actual list itself never surfaced, I think it’s safe to speculate now just who ended up on the veritable who’s who of Canadian adversaries: pretty much every environmental organization, First Nations (just, all of them), any person or community or pet against pipelines, organizations fighting poverty (although not, interestingly, people feeding the poor), journalists, organizations fighting for free speech, probably all Muslims but definitely all Muslim women.

You get the idea.

Pipelinepalooza

It’s hard to pick a favourite best/worst moment of the Harper government when it comes to pipelines.

But the epic, protracted cross-governmental freak-out that happened around the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline hearings should probably take the cake.

About 4,000 individuals signed up to participate in the review process for Northern Gateway, something Harper and his cadre of pipeline cronies took as a personal-affront to democracy.

Then-Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver lashed out in one of the strangest acts of statecraft we’ve ever seen: he wrote an open letter to all Canadians telling us all to stop being such goddamn terrorists.

It was awkward. Oh Joe, you old kook. Unfortunately Joe lost his seat in this last election so, I’m sorry to say it Canada, but we may not see those kinds of super fun antics again. Onward and upward, right?

Prorogation Nation

Harper loved himself a prorogued Parliament. That’s because you can pretty much use prorogation to accomplish anything!

In 2008, for example, Harper prorogued (basically, suspended) Parliament to avoid a non-confidence vote.

In 2010 he prorogued Parliament again ‘for the Olympics.’ But this also had the added effect of letting him avoid an inquiry into the mistreatment of Afghan detainees. So neat!

Harper was totes in contempt of Parliament for this, but whatevs!

Harper also shut down Parliament in 2013 to avoid questions about the senate scandal.

In all Harper suspended Parliament for 181 days, setting a new record for prime ministers in Canada.

Regulation is "CRAZY!"

Last year as countries were gathering Lima, Peru, for the 20th UNFCCC climate talks, Stephen Harper said it would be “crazy” for Canada to regulate emissions from the oil and gas sector.

He added that obviously no one else in their right mind would ever do such a thing (even though it turns out A LOT of people are doing exactly such a thing literally all over the world).

Steve was too busy rockin’ out to care, tho.

Tough on Terror

The contentious anti-terrorism Bill C-51 is probably Stephen Harper's pièce de résistance. The showpiece legislation showed just how far the former Prime Minister and his voting entourage were willing to pursue a political agenda no matter how many other former prime ministers, national editorial boards, technology experts, legal scholars, civil society organizations, democracy watchdogs and outraged citizens felt it was a really, really bad idea.

Although the bill was supposed to target terrorists, it affected such a grab bag of activities (like being critical of the government, expressing yourself freely, attending protests, disliking pipelines, being indigenous…) it in effect turned everyone and their grandmother into a terrorist. 

It was perhaps Stephen Harper's greatest high and greatest low. At the height of his powers, Harper took advantage of the nation's fear in the wake of the Ottawa shooting and carried it to its lowest logical conclusion: you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists. Even our new, fresh-faced leader Justin Trudeau was caught in the shitty binary and, wanting to impress upon the good people his distain for terrorists, voted in favour of what was probably one the worst pieces of legislation in Canadian history. 

Harper had a special talent for bending the legislative process to his will. Like Emperor Palpatine, he was a universal antagonist to the end.

Adieu, Harper. Adieu.

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.

In August 2014, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau made the trek to the tiny Gitga’at community of Hartley Bay, located along Enbridge’s proposed oil tanker route in northwestern B.C.

There, in the village of 200 people accessible only by air and water, he met with community elders and Art Sterritt, executive director of the Coastal First Nations.

“He came to Gitga’at because he wanted to make sure he was making the right decision in terms of Northern Gateway and being there certainly confirmed that,” Sterritt told DeSmog Canada on Tuesday.

“My confidence level went up immensely when Justin … visited Gitga’at.”

Two months before that visit, in May 2014, Trudeau told reporters in Ottawa that if he became prime minister “the Northern Gateway Pipeline will not happen.”

With Monday’s majority win by Trudeau, Sterritt — who retired three weeks ago from his role with Coastal First Nations — says he is “elated” and “Northern Gateway is now dead.”

“I know they’re going to live up to the commitments that they’ve made. I have absolutely no doubt about that,” Sterritt said, while taking a break from carving a totem pole. “Tears of joy will be flowing in Gitga’at.”

The fight against the 525,000-barrel-a-day oilsands pipeline goes back more than a decade.

“We’ve gone through some tough times with all that’s been peddled in the past decade, especially the last few years — all that’s been done to pave the way for oil,” Sterritt said. 

“There were many, many, many people who worked every day to stop Northern Gateway from jeopardizing everything we stand for.”

'Promises are Promises': Trudeau Will Face Corporate Pressure, But Must Hold Firm

Gerald Amos, former elected chief of Haisla, told DeSmog Canada communities are  going to have to keep up that fight to make sure the project dies.

“There’s a pretty darn good sense now that it won’t see the light of day,” Amos said. “It’s going to be a huge challenge for Justin Trudeau to make it happen, but promises are promises.”

That “challenge” will be in the form of corporate pressure, Amos said.

“I don’t think we should underestimate the power of the corporations,” he said. “I think that there’s going to be a lot of pressure come to bear on them from the corporate world.”

Smithers Mayor Taylor Bachrach is also cautiously optimistic.

“There are probably community leaders and First Nations and people all across the northwest waking up this morning with a sense of relief that that particular pipeline is no longer looming over our heads,” Bachrach told DeSmog Canada.

“It’s been a long road and it’s brought people together, but it will be nice to move on to other conversations about the future of our region.”

Bachrach said it’s too early to say definitively that Northern Gateway is dead, but added: “Mr. Trudeau has made clear commitments to the region and I look forward to having him follow through.”

Enbridge did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

Fight Againt Enbridge Northern Gateway Has Brought Communities Together

Terry Teegee, tribal chief for the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, said he’s always been confident Northern Gateway will be defeated due to court cases led by two Carrier-Sekani communities.

But he also emphasized that communities can’t let up until the project is dead for sure.

“I hope he lives up to that commitment and kills the project,” Teegee said. “Now that we have them in a place where we want them, we can’t let up politically or judicially until the project is dropped.”

Fighting Enbridge “has cost a lot of energy and a lot of resources and a lot of our time,” Teegee said.

But the fight has also brought communities together.

“We really are testing our rights and title, we’re testing our mettle as people. It really helped us develop relationships beyond our asserted title,” Teegee said.

“Asserting our rights and title collectively, we can really determine our own future, we can determine how development happens in our territory, we can determine what happens on a national scale. It would really send a message to oil and gas companies that it’s not ‘business as usual.’ You really need consent of First Nations."

Teegee thinks the battle over Northern Gateway has planted the seeds for a more proactive, productive conversation about the future.

“The next step is to keep the momentum going and start really discussing our issues. I think we need to have a real talk about energy and having an energy strategy for our people,” he said. 

Conservative Bullying Backfired in B.C.

Sterritt said ultimately the Conservatives misjudged British Columbia.

“Harper and Joe Oliver made the mistake of thinking they were going to bully their way through British Columbia,” Sterritt added. “They realized they made a mistake and have been pretty quiet for a long time.”

Enbridge’s Northern Gateway proposal hasn’t been the only oil pipeline proposed for northern B.C., however.

“We’ve got lots of noise,” Sterritt said. “We’ve got Mr. Black pushing for a refinery. You’ve got Eagle Spirit proposing something similar. But these are all just proposals. I think in light of how the people in the Pacific Northwest look at their place, I think these other projects are going to be hard-pressed to try to move ahead in the wake of Northern Gateway.”

In June 2010, the Liberal Party of Canada declared its support for legislation banning oil tankers on B.C.’s north coast. If that legislation is passed, it will spell the end of all oil tanker proposals for northern B.C.

Trudeau has also said the review process of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain oil export plan, which would see hundreds of oil tankers a year transit Vancouver’s harbour, will need to be re-done.

Image: Liberal MP Jody Wilson-Raybould, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Art Sterritt walk on the boardwalk in Hartley Bay, B.C.

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.

Over the past year we have seen a growing body of public opinion critiquing varied aspects of what is now termed ‘Harperism,’ for many a vexing and disturbing approach to Canadian governance.

My own criticism of the syndrome is increasingly annoying to my wife. ‘Your anger about Harperism seems to have deep emotional roots; it’s bigger than just — you need to dig deeper to discover its real cause.’

Well, I have. A key aid to my political exploration has been E. O. Wilson’s 2012 book, The Social Conquest of the Earth. The dust jacket commentary refers to it as the ‘summa work’ of his legendary career as an ecologist. Wilson is the living heir to Darwin, and a Professor Emeritus at Harvard.

He aids my political critique of Harperism in his rational analysis of eusociality — the most advanced level of social organization. Eusociality manifests as our collective ability as Homo sapiens, brought about by the evolutionary process of group selection, to empathize, to be compassionate, and perhaps most important, to be altruistic.

After reading Wilson, I was able to define my angst: I think the current Conservative government is presiding over a diminution, even a dismantling of eusociality in its many unique Canadian contexts. Simply put, we are diminishing state-wide altruism.

Chief amongst the qualities of eusocial animal species (Wilson figures there may be as few as 24 of them) is the will to cooperate. Allied with conspicuous acts of cooperation, altruism is the ability to act for good on another’s behalf with no expectation of praise or honour. Eusociality is also synonymous with social leveling, in that it abhors extremes, and works to maximize aggregate happiness and fair allocation of income. Eusocial species are not greedy, selfish or lazy — in fact, their defining quality is cooperative fairness. Wilson’s favourite example of eusociality is the society of leaf- cutter ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Atta). Their collective cooperative will really outshines our own species.

As I ponder the past two years of United Nation’s mocking, treaty and convention abrogation, distrust of science and the muzzling of scientists, closing of libraries, denial of climate change, vilification of NGOs and those who work for them, pandering to dogmatic ideologies based on unchallengeable precepts, diminishing the role of the House of Commons, and rebranding of our National Museum of Civilization, our currency, CIDA, and our global image, I am struck by the scale of the initiative. We are in a national retreat from cooperative gestures, and a growing embrace of selfish, greedy Ayn Randish objectivism.

We are now lecturing the world on the basis of our new-found economic and social evangelism, and championing a bitumen republic economy in a world aching for sustainability and a rational understanding of the ecological limits to consumerism and growth. I doubt if leaf- cutter ants would want to share their nests with us.

So what is the cure? Wilson argues that Homo sapiens’ evolution has benefitted from both group and individual selection. Group selection gave us eusociality; individual selection gave us greedy, selfish and lazy behaviours — ‘much of what we call sin.’ The push/pull dynamic of this dialectical collision has made us who we are. My point is that we need a national government that governs from the centre of this dynamic, not from one side only.

We also need to heed Wilson’s iron rule of genetic social evolution: ‘Selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, while groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals.’ I take from this that our federal government needs to start reconceptualizing economic and social policy that will give Canada a cooperative advantage in our relationships with other countries.

By this I mean that by conceptualizing our economy as being natural resource driven and carbon heavy, we will be championing the wrong side of the dialectic in years to come. Now is the time for carbon taxes, incentives for idea-based manufacturing, green technology and an altruistic approach to trade with other nations. Now is the time to champion international cooperation in tackling climate change. Now is the time to create the industrial infrastructure for the next economy.

In all of the above causes I expect the Conservative plurality-majority to be reluctant adherents at best. So I have one more cri de coeur: now is the time to build the Green/ Liberal/ NDP coalition to put cooperation back in Canada’s political gene pool. It is as simple as E. O. Wilson’s iron rule: groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals.

Troy Media syndicated columnist Mike Robinson has lived half of his life in Alberta and half in B.C. In Calgary he worked for eight years in the oil patch, 14 in academia, and eight years as a cultural CEO. This article originally appeared on Troy Media and is republished here with permission.

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

A one-of-a-kind debate in Victoria this week brought science and technology to the minds of federal candidates who all, despite their differences, agreed vociferously on one thing: Canada needs to be freed from the “war on science.”

In a packed room at the University of Victoria federal candidates for the NDP, Liberal and Green parties voiced unanimous concern with the muzzling of scientists, the cuts to research funding and the lack of transparency in government decision-making — all of which have, the candidates argued, became common place in the last four years of Conservative party majority rule.

Event organizer Aerin Jacob, a postdoctoral fellow in Geography at the University of Victoria, said Canadians are aware that there is a science crisis in Canada, even if they aren’t clear on the details. She invited candidates from all parties in four Vancouver Island ridings to speak to the community about those concerns.

Jacob said candidates from the Conservative Party did not respond to multiple invitations to participate in the science and technology debate.

Science Under Seige

“I think everyone in this room knows we’re seeing a war on science that is unprecedented, dangerous and deeply ideological,” Liberal candidate Tim Kane told the audience. “There is no doubt science in Canada is under siege.”

Jo-Ann Roberts, former CBC journalist and Green party candidate said the issue of science in Canada “is a big reason why I decided to run for office after being a journalist for 37 years.”

“It is not just war on science: it is information and knowledge in this country that is under siege,” Roberts said. “Canadians are angry about it.”

NDP candidate Murray Rankin said Canada has “moved from the age of enlightenment to the dark ages” due to “arbitrary funding cuts, centralization of power and a lack of respect for research.”

“Stephen Harper’s war on science is everywhere to be seen and his victims are everywhere in our system,” Rankin said.

CBC radio journalist Bob McDonald, who moderated the event, said, despite the current situation, “Canada has a long history of doing really excellent science.”

“We need scientific literacy in politicians and in the public because we have hard decisions we need to make about the future,” he said, “about how we keep ourselves warm, how we move from place to place and where that energy is going to come from, where our food and water is going to come from.”

McDonald told the audience “science is one of the last institutions we have that actually looks for the truth.”

All three candidates said if elected they would take steps to introduce a parliamentary science officer in Ottawa and bring back the mandatory-long form census.

Roberts said the Green Party’s platform includes a plan to make publicly funded science freely available to the public — something both Rankin and Kane said their parties would also pursue. Kane said the federal Liberal Party has plans for a central online portal that would make federal science more easily accessible to the public.

Rankin said the NDP will institute a bill of rights for science in government, something that would protect public servants from the fear of political reprisal.

“There should be an understanding that you can’t be fired for speaking truth to power,” he said.

Science a Number One Election Issue

The non-partisan science advocacy group Evidence for Democracy has been working hard to make science a relevant election issue. The group recently reviewed questions from federal leaders debate since 1968 and found none mentioned science policy.

Katie Gibbs says events like this week's science and technology debate show how much science has become a major player in the upcoming federal election.

“I have actually have been amazed to see how much science is playing into this election,” Gibbs said.

“And I think unprecedented that we’re seeing science as one of the main issues being discussed.”

Gibbs said the issue of science and the current challenged being faced with funding cuts and communications restrictions has “reached the next level of public awareness.”

This week Maclean's listed science as the top policy concern for Canadians who voted in the magazine's policy "face-off." Seventy-four per cent of participants said they wanted to see publicy funded science more readily available to the public.

“It’s really the public that is bringing this up,” Gibbs said. 

Transition Off Fossil Fuels Pressing for Candidates

All three candidates promised to reinstate funding for federal science, redirecting funds from contentious oil and gas subsidies.

McDonald asked the candidates to address the “big elephant in the room,” the fact that Canada is an oil producing country.

“How do you make the transition” off of fossil fuels, McDonald asked.

“The majority of fossil fuels must stay in the ground,” Roberts said. “We’re the only party that is opposed to the expansion of the oilsands…because if you’re expanding you’re going to need more pipelines and if you’re expanding you’re not bringing down your greenhouse gasses.”

Roberts said other countries provide a view of what a greener future could have in store for Canada.

“We have seen in Germany their renewable energy is 11 per cent of the GDP,” Roberts said. “Our oil and gas accounts for six per cent [of the GDP] and two per cent of the population works in the sector.”

The transition to cleaner forms of energy won’t occur without incentives, Roberts added.

Rankin said the NDP’s view on oilsands projects and pipelines is that decisions about these kinds of projects has to be “based on science, not ideology.”

“It’s just as bad for the Conservatives to never meet a pipeline they didn’t like for ideological reasons and to simply say we hate them for ideological reasons, “ he said.

Rankin added the transition to renewable energy will affect the approximately 550,000 people employed in the fossil fuel industry and must be “taken seriously.”

Rankin said there are smart ways of looking to transition. “If we move to geothermal — which is a technology that is much easier on the environment —geothermal is found where natural gas is found so that gives us an easy transition from the natural gas industry.”

“The question is sensitive to the reality that we have to look after those people who will be displaced,” he said.

Kane said he saw “lots of commonalities” between the three parties positions, adding the Liberal Party would work to create a favourable tax regime to draw renewable energy technology to cities like Victoria.

Kane also promised the Liberal Party will work with provincial premiers to formalize emissions reductions targets for the nation as a whole and “restore credibility” to the federal environmental assessment process which determines the fate of major oil and gas projects and infrastructure like the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

Jacob said she hoped the event would remind Canadians of the importance of science to the upcoming federal election.

“Science is about discovery and it’s exciting. Talking about science is talking about optimism, it’s talking about the future, about what we don’t know and what we want to find out and how we will go about doing that.”

“When people go to the polls they might be thinking about their jobs or their families,” Jacobs said, “but their jobs and families are deeply connected to science and technology whether or not they know it.”

“It’s important for politicians to pay attention to science and tech and for people to ask them questions about it.”

Jacob said she was “thrilled” to see the room so full of community members.

“It gives me hope.”

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

Alberta Conservative Senator Doug Black worries that Canadians are illiterate when it comes to energy and he’s on a mission to educate them.

“If we don’t address the issues facing us now,” he warns, “the prosperity my generation enjoyed will not be enjoyed by the next generation.”

Black is a rarity in the Senate, one of only three senators who were elected by voters in Alberta and then appointed to the Senate by Stephen Harper. Given the discredit that august body has fallen into, though, he may not hold that seat for long.

During the first half of 2015, Black travelled from coast to coast in his quest to educate Canadians about “the development of our energy resources and to discuss ways in which Canada can responsibly maximize its energy resources to benefit all Canadians.”

But it’s an odd crusade. Instead of meeting Canadians where they mostly congregate, in malls, union halls, church basements and community centres, he’s meeting them in posh hotels like the Vancouver Four Seasons, Toronto’s One King West, Edmonton Westin, Montreal Hyatt Regency and Ottawa’s Shaw Centre.

[view:in_this_series=block_1] Black’s Energy Tour

That’s because his “energy literacy tour” isn’t aimed at ordinary Canadians, but at the elites, the people who are already well-educated about energy, at least from the industry perspective. The tour is sponsored by the Economic Club of Canada, whose “audience members are drawn from the most senior levels of Canadian business, industry and government,” the club’s web site informs us.

The site features testimonials from the president of the Canadian Gas Association, the chief lobbyist for the Toronto-Dominion Bank (also a director of the Canadian-American Business Council), and the communications director for an oil and gas service corporation.

They’re certainly up to snuff on energy literacy, which raises the suspicion that the purpose of Black’s meetings with the elite is to promote the industry and further the development of Alberta’s oilsands.

And the Economic Council of Canada has set up blue ribbon panels of industry insiders and experts to help devise strategies to achieve this goal. The Toronto session in April, for instance included executives from Enbridge and Kinder Morgan along with Brian Tobin, vice-chair of the Bank of Montreal (BMO) and former premier of oil-rich Newfoundland and Labrador.

At that meeting Tobin worried that foreign investment is moving to the United States, where the investment review regime is more “flexible” than Canada’s. And Tobin would know about the problems foreign investors face in Canada: BMO acted as an adviser to China’s state-owned CNOOC in its contentious $15.1-billion takeover of oil and gas producer Nexen in 2013.

Kinder Morgan Canada’s Ian Anderson, who was also on the speaker’s bill, said he couldn’t understand why “a couple of hundred” protestors would want to hold up his company’s plans to build a pipeline under Burnaby Mountain. “Where is this opposition coming from?” he asked his audience. “What fear is motivating it?”

But instead of addressing why so many Canadians fear growing oilsands development, the energy elite, with Black in the vanguard, pushed back.

Advancing “Dialogue” on Energy Future

Black, who is one of Canada’s top oil and gas lawyers, has been immersed in the industry for decades and has many leading oil and gas executives as clients. He’s also a senior Alberta Progressive Conservative fundraiser and the party’s former finance vice-president, and he’s not afraid to admit he represents Big Oil in the Senate.

“One of the reasons I ran for the Senate,” he states on his web site, “was to advance a national dialogue on our energy future.” But is it a monologue rather than a dialogue he’s advancing?

Black heard his clients venting their incredulity over the way the public was showing such intense opposition to energy infrastructure, as Alberta Oil magazine explains. How could the public be so ignorant as to not see the connection between energy development and prosperity, the oil executives demanded to know.

So Black set out the make the connection. In 2009 he co-founded the Energy Policy Institute of Canada (EPIC), an organization with “a singular focus on one task: to draft an energy strategy.” It was almost like a service to his clients and the industry.

This rather benign sounding goal masked the real purpose of the organization, which Linda McQuaig saw as “a lobbying vehicle for dozens of extremely wealthy, powerful fossil fuel companies … all hell-bent on developing Alberta’s tar sands.”

Members included the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, Canadian Gas Association, EnCana, Imperial Oil, Shell Canada, TransCanada Corp., and many others.

Industry Drafting Legislation

The group released its strategy in 2012 after three years of discussions and meetings with various governments and industry interests. It was pooh-poohed by the corporate media, but an analysis by the ForestEthics Advocacy Association reveals that the oil industry — through EPIC — helped write the rules “that now restrict public participation on the environmental impacts of tar sands expansion projects.” ForestEthics documents the profound impact the EPIC report had in at least one crucial area of energy development — government regulation.

EPIC recommended that the “federal government must develop regulations that restrict participation in federal environmental assessment reviews to those parties that are ‘directly and adversely affected’ by the proposal in question.”

It also recommended that “the relevance and credibility of evidence presented for environmental assessments must be explained.” This precise language is now found in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012, on the National Energy Board’s website, and on the National Energy Board Application to Participate Form, ForestEthics notes. It’s just one example of many in the report.

Such a cooperative government response could be due to the efforts of EPIC’s co-chair, Bruce Carson, a long-time Tory insider who had been a senior aide in Harper’s PMO. Carson brought EPIC’s’ document to Nigel Wright, Harper’s chief of staff, who promised to read it “over the weekend” and urged Carson to “feel free to give me a call at any time.”

Carson reported back to Black that he’d briefed Wright, who “seemed generally supportive.”

“Excellent, Need Nigel on side,” Black responded.

A year later, Carson, who earned a $120,000 annual honorarium for his work, was charged with engaging in illegal lobbying and influence peddling, because he broke the five-year ban on lobbying after leaving the government’s employ, among other charges. Meanwhile Black became a senator and took his seat on the Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, where he could continue his work.

He outlined his mission in his maiden speech to the Senate:

All interested parties now agree that on an urgent basis we must find ways to export our energy products and to help educate Canadians about the importance of market access. For success, we need Canadians to accept that their future prosperity depends on our solving this problem. We must ensure that governments and energy producers have the social licence needed to make the critical infrastructure projects.

Black’s History of Industry Lobbying

Black has fronted for Big Oil before. In 2002 he was chief lobbyist for the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions, a group that appeared on the scene several months before the Jean Chrétien government prepared to ratify the Kyoto Accord. The CCRES was created by Burson-Marsteller, the PR giant that specializes in creating astroturf organizations.

The organization was framed as “a broad cross-section of Canadian industry,” but the money came from Black’s clients in Big Oil. CCRES pulled all the stops in its efforts to derail Kyoto, including expensive saturation TV ads in Ontario. But it couldn’t prevent Chrétien from proceeding with ratification.

Not that it mattered. A decade later, Black’s party was in charge in Ottawa, Kyoto was ancient history, and Black was still furthering Big Oil’s interests, this time by educating Canadians about the need for oil pipelines if we want continued prosperity.

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.

With U.S. President Barack Obama expected to deny a permit to the Keystone XL pipeline this fall, Canada’s oil industry is looking for someone to blame.

The National Post’s Claudia Cattaneo wrote last week that “many Canadians … would see Obama’s fatal stab as a betrayal by a close friend and ally” and that others “would see it as the product of failure by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government to come up with a climate change plan.”

The latter is the more logical conclusion. Obama has made his decision-making criteria clear: he won’t approve the pipeline if it exacerbates the problem of carbon pollution.

Even the U.S. State Department’s very conservative analysis states the Keystone XL pipeline would “substantially increase oilsands expansion and related emissions.” The Environmental Protection Agency has agreed.

While Canada’s energy reviews take into account “upstream benefits” — such as jobs created in the oilsands sector as a result of pipelines — they don’t even consider the upstream environmental impacts created by the expansion of the oilsands.

For all the bluster and finger-pointing, there’s no covering up the fact that Canada’s record on climate change is one of broken promises.

Oil and Gas Regulations Promised Since 2006

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has promised since 2006 that he’ll regulate oil and gas emissions. Those regulations still haven’t materialized nearly a decade later —and there’s only one person to blame for that.

In recent years, Harper has taken the approach that Canada can’t regulate its oil and gas sector unless the U.S. does too. This argument is fundamentally flawed.

First, it presumes that Canada should outsource its climate policy to another country. On issues from health care to acid rain, Canada has moved independently from the U.S. and prospered as a result.

Secondly, copying U.S. climate policy has never really made sense from a greenhouse gas perspective because the countries have very different emissions profiles.

Chiefly, the oil and gas sector only accounts for about three per cent of U.S. emissions, so it isn’t a top priority for the country to regulate. Instead, the U.S. is focused on reducing emissions from power plants — including coal and natural gas-fired electricity — which account for one-third of emissions.

In Canada, the oil and gas sector accounts for nearly 25 per cent of Canada’s emissions, hence the need for a focus on that sector when addressing emissions.

What’s more, while coal-fired power plant emissions in the U.S. are already dropping, oilsands emissions are projected to more than double from 2010 to 2020, making them Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas pollution.

Canada and the Copenhagen Accord: More Broken Promises

Let’s not forget: when Canada has aligned itself with the U.S. on climate commitments, it has broken those promises.

As part of the 2009 Copenhagen agreement, both countries agreed to reduce their carbon emissions by 17 per cent by 2020.

The U.S. has implemented a plan to meet those commitments by aggressively tackling its biggest source of emissions (coal-fired power plants), along with a range of other actions, including taking on methane emissions, which account for the majority of emissions from its oil and gas sector.  

Meantime, Canada is on track to substantially miss its Copenhagen commitments, due in large part to its unchecked support of oilsands expansion.

Instead of actually addressing growing emissions from the oilsands sector, the Canadian government has focused on PR — spending millions to lobby internationally for approval of new pipelines and undermining clean energy policies in Canada, the U.S. and the European Union. More than that, the federal government has eliminated environmental protections and undermined public review processes.

Harper would have better served the interests of all Canadians (including the oil industry) by investing that time and energy into writing climate regulations, instead of sticking his head in the sand.

Harper Treats Climate Change as Race to Bottom

All in all, it’s little wonder that Obama is expected to refuse the Keystone XL pipeline when Harper has treated Obama’s chief concern, climate change, as a race to the bottom by employing the faulty logic that because we can’t solve the whole problem, we should do nothing.

If our leaders had employed that same logic in the 1940s, Canada would never have sent troops to the Second World War, where Canadians accounted for just two per cent of the Allied effort.

After a summer of unprecedented wildfires and drought across North America, it’s never been more apparent that climate change is already costing us all.

Citibank just released a new report showing that taking action now against the growing threat of climate change would save $1.8 trillion by 2040. And yes, that report takes into account the potential lost revenue from leaving resources in the ground — including 80 per cent of coal reserves, half of the world’s gas reserves, and a third of global oil reserves — and still concludes that the global economy would see a net gain.

While the fossil fuel industry continues to pay off pseudo scientists and unethical PR firms to create confusion about climate change, the science is clear. And the time to act is now.

The federal government’s utter failure on climate change has given rise to fruitless, polarized pipeline debates, such as the prolonged one over TransCanada’s Keystone XL. The only person who can be blamed for that is Harper himself.

Main image: A 2009 Greenpeace billboard calls on world leaders to secure a fair, ambitious and binding deal at the Copenhagen Cimate Summit. 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.