Documents released on Monday reveal that B.C.’s climate plan under the previous Liberal government was drafted by the oil and gas industry in a Calgary boardroom, just as the province’s new NDP government moves to ban corporate and union donations to B.C. political parties.

The documents speak to long-standing concerns over the influence of political donations in B.C.’s political process. B.C. has long been considered the ‘wild west’ of political cash for placing no limits on corporate, union or foreign donations.

“I think this is deeply corrosive to our democracy and it encourages cynicism about politics,” Max Cameron, political science professor and director of the Study of Democratic Institutions at the University of British Columbia, told DeSmog Canada.

The documents, released to Shannon Daub of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives as part of her research with the Corporate Mapping Project, reveal that while the B.C. government under former premier Christy Clark hired a celebrated Climate Leadership Team and conducted public consultations, a parallel industry consultation process occurred behind closed doors in a boardroom of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

The BC Liberals have raked in cash from the fossil fuel industry, including more than $3.7 million from just the top 10 industry donors between 2008 and 2015.

Cameron said the documents, which include slides outlining industry working groups tasked with addressing carbon pricing and methane emissions, provide a much-needed glimpse into what exactly industry is paying for when making large donations to political parties.

“Reading these documents gives us some real insight into how it is that these kinds of donations can buy not just access to government but access to actually writing policy,” he said.

Clark’s Secret Consultations with Oil and Gas Donors Revealed As BC Introduces Big Money Ban #bcpoli @CCPA_BC https://t.co/nFjm9W8Vqx

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 18, 2017

Climate Leadership Team Unaware of Parallel Industry Consultations

B.C. handpicked a blue-ribbon team of 17 academic, business, environmental and First Nations stakeholders to form the Climate Leadership Team. That team made 32 official recommendations to the B.C. government, none of which were implemented in the province’s eventual Climate Action Plan.

Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada, was a member of the team and said the fact that not a single recommendation was adopted “really says it all.”

Christy Clark’s government “allowed the oil and gas sector to write the climate plan for B.C. that is mostly status quo and has very little impact on B.C.’s growing climate pollution,” Smith told DeSmog Canada.

She added once the team made its recommendations to the government, their involvement in the crafting of the Climate Action Plan tapered off quickly.

“We had very few meetings with the B.C. government once the recommendations were created. It was clear that they actually had very little interest in doing anything with recommendations.”

Meanwhile, Christy Clark pointed to the recommendations at the UN Climate Summit in Paris as evidence of B.C.’s climate leadership.

Tzeporah Berman, a prominent environmental advocate in B.C. and member of the Climate Leadership Team said she had no idea B.C. was conducting parallel consultations with industry.

“I was shocked when I saw these documents,” Berman told DeSmog Canada.

“Consultation should be a transparent process and should be done with multiple stakeholders. These were secret meetings in Calgary where the oil and gas industry was rewriting B.C. policy. That's not consultation, it's corruption.”

Berman said the documents reveal an “unacceptable level of access and influence with the Liberal government.”

“They also help those of us from the leadership team understand how the climate plan that the Liberals put together really had no similarity to what the Liberals’ own climate team recommended,” she said.

The team worked hard for months to deliver a plan within a short timeframe and offered to meet with stakeholders to “problem solve any concerns” if that would help B.C. “ensure implementation” of the recommendations, Berman said.

But that offer was never taken up.

“From our end it was a bizarre process,” Berman said.

Fossil Fuel Companies Regularly ‘Craft’ Climate Plans

Laurie Adkin, professor of political science at the University of Alberta, said when it comes to government consultations with corporations, “secrecy is routine” and “transparency is the exception.”

“Even when governments reveal that they have met with representatives of private corporations, reporting on these meetings typically does not reveal which corporate representatives were in the room, or what their positions were,” Adkin told DeSmog Canada.

Adkin, who is a member of the Corporate Mapping Project, specializes in documenting corporate influence in politics and on university campuses.

Government consultation with industry is the status quo, Adkin said, while public consultation is meant to merely survey public opinion and “give the appearance that government has created meaningful opportunities for citizen input into policy decisions.”

“I do not believe that any climate change plan has been written, to date, in which the major fossil fuel corporations have not ‘directly crafted’ the plan,” Adkin said.

Adkin and Cameron agree the documents are reflective of “institutional corruption.”

“Corruption isn’t just quid pro quo of privately benefitting from your public office, it’s also a corruption of the institution, when the public purpose of the institution is undermined by private actors in a way that diminishes our trust in those institutions,” Cameron said.

“The goal of public policy is to serve the public’s interest, not to serve particular private interests.”

Leadership Team Hopeful Under New NDP Government

Berman said the oil and gas industry has too much political influence in Canada, but said she is hopeful the new B.C. government will “design policy to benefit the people and not just polluters.”

“I was very glad to see the carbon tax increase in the last budget,” Berman said.

“I think the next step is removing all the subsidies that the Liberal government handed out to the gas industry. We shouldn't be spending taxpayers dollars to help the fossil fuel industry expand in the climate era”

Berman said she also looks forward to the new government moving forward on the zero emissions vehicles targets and strengthening the clean fuel standard.

Smith said she is pleased the Climate Leadership Team had the opportunity to craft the recommendations when it did.

“The silver lining is that we still have a good, solid set of climate action recommendations sitting there, and we now have a Premier and government who is interested in taking climate action and building a clean growth economy for the twenty-first century.”

Image: Former premier Christy Clark at a Woodfibre LNG announcement. Photo: Province of B.C. via Flickr

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

After decades of insufficient or insincere attempts to address emissions from Canada’s fastest growing source of climate pollution, a new government-sponsored oilsands advisory group may help resolve political gridlock surrounding the nation’s most contentious natural resource by bringing together industry, environmental and indigenous stakeholders.

The Oil Sands Advisory Group (OSAG) is tasked with helping the province implement a new emissions cap for the oilsands that limits greenhouse gas output to 100 megatonnes per year and will also advise on reducing the overall environmental impacts of production, according to a government statement released Wednesday.

According to Tzeporah Berman, the group's co-chair and a well-known environmentalist, the composition of the advisory group represents a notable shift in the political landscape.

“Let's be clear: under previous governments environmental leaders had very little access and were outright ridiculed by many ministers and departments,” Berman told DeSmog Canada. “First Nations leaders were simply shut out. Climate change was denied.”

“A lot has changed in a year in Alberta and it is opening up new conversations.”

Alberta announced new climate legislation last fall that for the first time in the province’s history put an end to the notion of endless oilsands growth. Upon release of the new plan, Premier Rachel Notley, flanked by leaders of industry, prominent environmental organizations and local First Nations, said, “This is the day we stop denying this is an issue, and this is the day we do our part.”

The climate plan marked not only a new era of climate leadership (it was called a “pigs fly” situation) but a fresh approach to resolving the political gridlock that for years has pitted climate advocates and environmental groups against a seemingly entangled block of government and industry.

Berman, who stood with Notley during the climate plan announcement in November, said she’s optimistic that, working together, these strange bedfellows can make real change to a stagnant climate leadership environment and “move past the polarization of the oilsands.”

“The fact that the government just appointed people like me, who have been fierce critics shows its resolve to face and solve the hard stuff,” she said. “So instead of trading opinions through the media, those of us who have been 'adversaries' will be sitting down with a common purpose and a shared mandate.”

Dave Collyer, group co-chair and former president of Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, echoed the sentiment: “It is the diversity of this group and its problem-solving focus on emissions leadership, local environmental performance and innovation that will help de-escalate conflict and contribute to the ongoing success of this important industry.”

According to the Conference Board of Canada, Canada ranks among the worst in the world for per capita greenhouse gas emissions, following the U.S. and Australia. Although Alberta accounts for only 11 per cent of the population, it contributed 36 per cent of national emissions in 2013.

The oilsands are Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions and those emissions are projected to grow enough to nullify emissions reductions in other sectors and jurisdictions across the country.

“The simple fact is Alberta can’t let its emissions grow without limit,” energy minister Margaret McCuaig-Boyd said in a statement, “but we can grow our economy and our market by showing leadership, including reducing our carbon output per barrel.”

Simon Dyer, member of the new advisory group and director of the Pembina Institute in Alberta, said Alberta is finally treating oilsands environmental management and climate change “as they deserve to be treated: as serious public policy issues that need big change.” 

“I’ve been working on these issues for more than a decade and it was always traditionally framed as just a communications, PR air war,” Dyer told DeSmog Canada, adding the change in government engagement is “very welcome.”

There are still lots of issues in the oilsands that need to be resolved, Dyer said, “but they are only going to be resolved by a lot of people talking about them and the government making substantive changes.”

Alberta is playing catch up when it comes to environmental management and embracing renewable energy, Dyer said.

Earlier this week the government announced new incentives for enhanced oil and gas programs, something many in the environmental community were distressed to see. Equally distressing for some climate advocates is the province’s staunch support of building new oil export pipelines.

“I think what the government is trying to do is allay concerns they are anti-oil and gas and at the same time recognizing that a new economy is going to have to be based on renewables so we have to expand the clean economy,” Dyer said. “That’s the political reality in Alberta. It’s unfortunate but we’re behind and playing catch up.”

“That something like moving to 30 per cent renewables could be considered risky or out of step with the mainstream just shows how far behind Alberta has been and this government has to make big strides going forward,” Dyer added. “But they have to bring the rest of Alberta with them.”

#Alberta Brings Former Adversaries Together for New #Oilsands Advisory Group https://t.co/zzYjqLfAtJ #ableg #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/AXGeaio0HG

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 18, 2016

For years the oilsands have faced growing civil society opposition, especially with respect to expansion, impacts on First Nations treaty rights and the construction of new or expanded oilsands export pipelines.

Adam Scott from Oil Change International said his organization is encouraged the new body  “can help start a real discussion” about Alberta’s energy resources.

Although he cautions, “there is no acceptable climate scenario where Alberta would be allowed to grow the tar sands and build new pipelines like Kinder Morgan and Energy East.”

Tim Gray, one of the 18 members of the advisory group and executive director of Environmental Defence, said Alberta — as an oil-producing jurisdiction that has an interest in building new pipelines — faces some significant challenges.

“Industry — and the Alberta government to a lesser degree — has been adamant that they want to build more pipelines and they’ve tied the completion of those to a lot of economic promises and it’s not clear if those will be achieved or not even if they did build a pipeline."

Gray said he remains unconvinced pipelines are the best strategy for Alberta and that more work needs to be done to determine if any need for new pipelines will remain once the cap put on emissions is put into place.

He said his organization remains opposed to pipeline projects like Energy East.

But, he added, he is encouraged such questions are being put to the diverse group of people that comprise the oilsands advisory group.

“I think the fact that you have organizations around the table that have very divergent views on the necessity of pipelines and what is the best way forward for an oil jurisdiction that is interesting and will make for challenging circumstances for the development of recommendations,” he told DeSmog Canada.

“But I think it shows a level of maturity by the government that they’re willing to have people with those divergent opinions and trying to work through them and bring data to bear.”

Berman said the group will begin the immediate work of creating new rules to keep oilsands emissions under the 100 megatonne cap.

“This is one of the first times in the world that an oil jurisdiction has voluntarily set a limit and we are breaking new ground,” Berman said. 

“Our goal is recommendations in the fall and then we will move on to designing reviews for cumulative impacts on water, air and biodiversity.”

“Within two years we will have made recommendations on all of those issues plus developed proposals for developing a long-term pathway on climate leadership between now and 2050.” 

For a province that has consistently failed to implement meaningful climate regulations on the oil and gas sector, the task at hand is enormous — but it's encouraging to see Alberta's willingness to bring together strange bedfellows and tackle the thorny questions head on.

Image: Suncor/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.

Seven members of Christy Clark’s hand-picked, blue-ribbon Climate Leadership Team are going public with their disappointment in the province’s lack of climate action in an open letter released Monday.

Signatories include noted environmental leader Tzeporah Berman, hereditary chief of the Squamish Nation, Chief Ian Campbell, professor of oceanography at the University of Victoria, Tom Pederson, B.C. associate director of the Pembina Institute, Matt Horne, Cayoose Creek Band chief, Michelle Edwards, professor Nancy Olewiler and executive director of Clean Energy Canada, Merran Smith.

The letter, addressed to Clark, states B.C. is in no position to shrug off the 32 recommendations made by the team last November in advance of the UN Paris Climate Talks. At the talks, Clark used the Climate Leadership Team’s work to bolster the province’s environmental credibility.

But the team itself is saying the B.C. Liberals have failed to implement the recommendations made by the group of experts. B.C has consistently pushed back the release date of a provincial climate plan.

The province, once an international leader in carbon pricing, has stalled action on climate by imposing a restriction on carbon pricing, creating loopholes for large industrial emitters and agressively advancing the creation of an LNG export industry. Compared to provinces like Ontario, which just announced $7 billion in funding for an ambitious climate plan, and Alberta, which announced an ambitious plan to phase out all coal-fired power plants last fall, B.C. is quickly falling behind.

Between 2011 and 2013, B.C.'s emissions climbed by 1.7 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. That's the same as adding 440,000 cars to B.C. roads, according to Clean Energy Canada. According to Canada’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change those emissions are forecast to grow by 32 per cent between 2013 and 2030.

“B.C. can’t be a climate leader if carbon pollution is rising,” the letter states.

Read the full text of the letter here:

Dear Premier,

One year ago, you asked us to serve on the Climate Leadership Team and provide your government with advice on how to advance B.C.’s climate change plan. The motivation for the new plan was clear: while B.C. had been a leader on developing climate policy in Canada, and in fact around the world, the province’s carbon pollution was rising and stronger policy would be needed to get the province on track to meet our legislated emissions reduction targets.

You asked us for recommendations that would enable the province to meet its 2020 and 2050 climate targets, maintain a strong economy, and provide support to the British Columbians most in need. You asked us to reach consensus across a group that included leaders from First Nations, business, academia, local government, the provincial government and environmental organizations.

The process we worked through last year was difficult, but it was also successful. We managed to deliver in six months. Our work resulted in 32 recommendations that we provided to your government last November. The package of recommendations represents a mix of innovative thinking and compromise that fulfills our mandate and respects the different perspectives represented on the team. The recommendations provide a blueprint to help get the province back on track for our climate targets, stimulate innovation, create jobs, protect B.C. businesses and support rural communities.

We advised your government to commit to the package of recommendations this year so that British Columbians and B.C. businesses have time to plan. This is particularly true of our recommendations to strengthen the carbon tax, which were central to the overall package. Committing to a next schedule of increases, closing gaps in its coverage and explaining how the revenue will be used will help reduce uncertainty, ease the transition to a low-carbon economy for emissions-intensive and trade-exposed sectors and families, and support investments in clean energy across the province.

The reasons to move forward with this plan are stronger than ever. Climate change threatens our economy, our communities and our environment. To confront those threats, we need to increase our efforts to reduce fossil fuel use and better prepare ourselves for a changing climate. And as the world increasingly begins to act, the demand for clean energy is accelerating. The actions we take to increasingly shift to clean energy in the province will also help position B.C. businesses to provide the solutions the world needs.

We want to see the province reach its climate targets; delay only increases the costs and makes it harder to succeed. We are thus concerned about the shifts in deadlines. You initially committed to having a draft plan in advance of the Paris climate talks last December and a final plan by this March. The draft plan was cancelled and the deadline for the final plan was pushed to June.

B.C. is in no position to delay or scale back its efforts. The rest of Canada and the rest of the world have been taking action since B.C.’s initial climate plan in 2008, and B.C.’s increasing carbon pollution is taking us in the wrong direction.

B.C. can’t be a climate leader if its carbon pollution is rising. As the federal government places a renewed emphasis on climate action, now is the time for B.C. to be articulating its next steps. The new federal-provincial relationship on climate change will be defined by the jurisdictions taking actions to significantly reduce their carbon pollution and B.C. should be among them.

The Climate Leadership Team recommendations, implemented in their entirety, provide the blueprint for a B.C. climate plan to put the province back on track for the 2050 and interim 2030 targets.

Anything less is not climate leadership.

Sincerely,

Chief Ian Campbell, hereditary chief, Squamish Nation Chief Michelle Edwards, Cayoose Creek Band Tom Pedersen, professor of oceanography, University of Victoria Matt Horne, B.C. associate director, Pembina Institute Merran Smith, executive director, Clean Energy Canada Tzeporah Berman, adjunct professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University Nancy Olewiler, professor, School of Public Policy, Simon Fraser University

CC:

Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Honourable James Carr, Minister of Natural Resources Mr. Jonathan Wilkinson, Parliamentary Secretary Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of Environment Honourable Bill Bennett, Minister of Energy and Mines Honourable Shirley Bond, Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training Honourable Rich Coleman, Minister of Natural Gas Development Honourable Mike de Jong, Minister of Finance Honourable Peter Fassbender, Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development Honourable Todd Stone, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Mr. Jordan Sturdy, Parliamentary Secretary

Image: Province of 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.

An article published last week in the National Post that claims a “secret” deal was struck between oil companies and environmentalists has ruffled many feathers — from corporate big wigs in Calgary to environmental activists on the West Coast.

According to Claudia Cattaneo’s story, Alberta’s climate change plan — which introduced a carbon tax, phased out coal-fired electricity and put a cap on oilsands emissions — was “the product of secret negotiations between four top oilsands companies and four environmental organizations.”

I’m not sure how secret any of that was given that all of those players could clearly be seen on stage with Alberta Premier Rachel Notley when she announced the plan, but the story goes on to state: “The companies agreed to the cap in exchange for the environmental groups backing down on opposition to oil export pipelines, but the deal left other players on the sidelines, and that has created a deep division in Canada’s oil and gas sector.”

The remainder of the story goes into how various oil companies have their knickers in a twist over the deal.  You’d think environmentalists would be dancing in the streets about that, but no — it’s actually hard to say who’s more outraged: environmentalists, who bristle at the idea of a secret deal and who don’t think the agreement is strong enough, or oil companies, who don’t think the new regulations will help them gain the market access they’re so desperately seeking.

Let’s just all hold our horses for a second.

First off, let’s look at the source. Cattaneo has spewed quite a bit of industry drivel over the years and her interpretation of Canada’s energy politics leaves much to be desired. Has she exhibited much understanding of how social movements actually work? Nope.

Secondly, was there a deal to stop opposition to oil export pipelines? There were at least five environmental groups on stage for the announcement: Forest Ethics, the Pembina Institute, Clean Energy Canada, Equiterre and Environmental Defence.

Forest Ethics has publicly stated that its campaign against Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline won’t change.

Environmental Defence’s executive director Tim Gray told DeSmog Canada that its work on pipeline issues from a climate, water, biodiversity and community impact perspective will continue. The organization is now looking to the feds for a revised review process for pipelines, which includes a climate test that takes into account all infrastructure, including trains, and respects Alberta’s cap on oilsands emissions.

The Pembina Institute’s executive director Ed Whittingham told DeSmog Canada that Pembina’s oilsands advocacy work will continue. Pembina’s advocacy around pipelines has always been out of concern for upstream impacts — not surprising for a group founded in Alberta, on the heels of a deadly sour gas well blowout.  While many of Pembina’s climate-related concerns have been addressed by Alberta’s climate plan, “lots of air, land and water concerns remain,” Whittingham said.

Clean Energy Canada never campaigned against pipelines in the first place. And Equiterre couldn’t be reached, but I’d hazard a guess they’re in the same boat as the others.

So, sounds to me as though there was no deal of the sort that Cattaneo described.

Thirdly, even if there was a deal, a deal with four environmental groups wouldn’t be worth the hypothetical notepad it was jotted on given the breadth of opposition to new oil pipelines in this country — from municipalities like Vancouver and Burnaby to First Nations to grassroots activists to the umpteen environmental groups that weren’t on that stage.

“People who think climate policy in Alberta will ‘buy market access’ through B.C. don’t understand concerns around Indigenous rights, tanker traffic, oil spills or the grossly unequal distribution of economic risk and benefit,” said Kai Nagata, energy and democracy director at B.C.-based Dogwood Initiative.

It’s not helping the industry’s case that a landmark study released on Tuesday by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences confirms that diluted bitumen, such as that carried by Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline, sinks in water if not cleaned up immediately, making for a nightmare scenario.

The study, Spills of Diluted Bitumen from Pipelines: A Comparative Study of Environmental Fate, Effects, and Response, concluded that diluted bitumen poses unique risks compared to other blends of crude oil.

Which brings me back to my point: the pipeline deal-breaker in B.C. has always been the risk of oil spills. Alberta’s action on climate change doesn’t move the needle on that.

Now, to the climate plan itself. Many environmentalists aren’t terribly impressed with it. Take this revealing infographic by Barry Saxifrage, which shows how Alberta’s emissions will continue to grow until 2030. (Canada has promised to reduce emissions 30 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030.)

However, we must take into consideration that Alberta has already issued permits for another six million barrels a day of oilsands production. The new cap means that, at current emissions levels, three million barrels of those barrels will stay in the ground. That’s a seriously bold move in a province that has an economy 70 per cent based on oil — and that has already seen 40,000 layoffs in the energy industry this year.

All of the enviro grousing of late has reminded me of Rebecca Solnit’s stellar piece in The Guardian a few years back, written to her dismal allies on the U.S. left.

“If I gave you a pony, you would not only be furious that not everyone has a pony, but you would pick on the pony for not being radical enough until it wept big, sad, hot pony tears,” Solnit wrote. “Can you imagine how far the civil rights movement would have gotten, had it been run entirely by complainers for whom nothing was ever good enough? To hell with integrating the Montgomery public transit system when the problem was so much larger!”

Environmentalists are fighting the richest industry in the world — an industry that has spent millions of dollars to confuse the public about climate change science. They are finally starting to see some victories. The climate change plan enacted in Alberta was unimaginable a year ago. It has the “100 per cent” support of Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Chief Allan Adam.

If we want any policy to stick — not to be struck down like former Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach’s royalty review — it needs to have broad support. Part of the job of the environmental movement should be to help build that support.

To quote Solnit again: “Being different (from the radical right) means celebrating what you have in common with potential allies, not punishing them for often-minor differences. It means developing a more complex understanding of the matters under consideration than the cartoonish black and white that both left and the right tend to fall back on.”

The fact industry and environmental leaders met informally over the past year, found some common ground and ended up standing on stage together to announce a major step forward on Alberta climate policy is a great thing. (And saying that does not mean I don’t acknowledge that while great, it’s not sufficient for Alberta to do its fair share to keep the planet from warming more than two degrees.)

As Tzeporah Berman, adjunct professor in the faculty of environmental studies at York University, wrote recently: “To say a policy is great does not mean there is not more work to be done.”

Without further ado, may the pipeline battles continue.

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.

By Charles Mandel. This article originally appeared on the National Observer.

Ecojustice, on behalf of a group of prominent Canadians, filed a complaint Thursday with the federal Competition Bureau, asking it to investigate false and misleading representations made by climate change denier groups.

In their application to the Commissioner of Competition, the group called for “a thorough rigorous inquiry of the denier groups and their climate science misrepresentations.”

The group is also pressing for the commission to refer their application to the Attorney-General of Canada for criminal charges against the denier groups.

Ecojustice filed the complaint of behalf of Stephen Lewis, the former Canadian Ambassador to the UN and chair of the 1988 World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere; Tzeporah Berman, author and adjunct professor at York University; and Thomas Duck, an atmospheric scientist at Dalhousie University in Halifax.

Other complainants are David Schindler, the Killam Memorial professor of ecology at the University of Alberta, and Danny Harvey, an University of Toronto professor and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author.

The complaint cites The Friends of Science, The International Climate Science Coalition and the Heartland Institute for misleading billboard advertisements, website representations and a poster made available as a free download on a website.

“These groups attempt to discredit the established scientific consensus that global warming and climate change are real and caused by human activity,” Duck said in a statement. “The reality, causes and consequences of climate change are well understood.”

Canada’s Competition Act prohibits the making of materially false or misleading representations for the purpose of promoting any business interest such as fossil fuel development.

In its application, Ecojustice states that it believes the case should be referred to the Attorney General as a criminal matter. Potential prosecution can take place if it can be demonstrated that there’s clear and compelling evidence that accused knowingly or recklessly made false or misleading representations to the public.

The competition bureau must also be satisfied that criminal prosecution would be in the public interest.

The application notes that two Friends of Science billboards were the subject of 96 complaints to Advertising Standards Canada (ASC) during their display in Montreal in 2014. The council reviewed the billboard ads against the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards and determined they were false and misleading advertising.

The Friends of Science appealed the ruling, but it was upheld. Just months after the decision, the Friends of Science put up a new video billboard making climate science misrepresentations in Montreal and in November 2015 put up more billboards in Edmonton and Calgary.

The application alleges that the Friends of Science’s continued display of climate science misrepresentations after numerous consumer complaints and a former censure by the ASC is clear and compelling evidence that the group knowingly or recklessly made such misrepresentations.

“When combined with the overwhelming public importance of the context in which the climate science misrepresentations are made — including the effect of climate change on the Canadian economy, and the negative effects of climate science misrepresentations on competition in key markets for stimulating the transition to a low carbon economy in Canada — we believe the Commissioner’s inquiry should proceed on the criminal track,” the application states.

Ecojustice and the individuals it represents allege that the climate change denier groups misrepresent climate change science to promote their own business interests and those of their anonymous funders.

“While the denier groups do not publically disclose the identities of their funds, available public information suggests their funding comes at least in part from individuals and corporations with business interests in the production and use of fossil fuels,” the application to the Competition Bureau alleges.

The application states that Talisman Energy Inc., a Calgary-based oil and gas exploration and production company, donated $175,000 to Friends of Science in 2004 to fund the production of a specific video and other activities.

Mike De Souza, an environmental journalist then with the Ottawa Citizen, wrote in 2012 how the energy company, contributed to a pair of trust accounts at the University of Calgary in 2004 to produce a video and engage in public relations, advertising and lobbying activities against the Kyoto Protocol and government measures to restrict fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

The accounts were formed at the request of Friends of Science, whom de Souza described as “retired oil industry workers and academics who oppose the Kyoto Protocol and reject the validity of peer-reviewed science on the causes of climate change observed in recent decades.”

In an earlier submission to Alberta’s Privacy and Information Commissioner, Talisman said that an university audit turned up nothing to suggest that the school was aware of its own funds “being used for political purposes,” De Souza reported.

A Talisman spokesperson told De Souza that “the donation was a decision made by the company’s former president, who had ‘different views on climate change science.’

“Today, Talisman’s position is quite different and Talisman does believe that [greenhouse gas emissions] pose a significant risk to the industry,” the spokesperson said.

In its application, Ecojustice states that climate science misrepresentations are inherently harmful to the proper functioning of markets in Canada. “The confusion they sow makes low-carbon technologies less competitive and distorts capital investment toward high-carbon industries, risking a carbon bubble.”

The Competition Act gives the commissioner investigatory powers to examine witnesses and order the production of documents, such as lists of donors, to advance an inquiry. If the information gathered by the commissioner shows the act has been violated, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General of Canada for prosecution or civil proceedings before the courts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trudeau Taking a Cautious Approach to Provinces and Climate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A New Post-Harper Era

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Premiers Optimistic About Working with Ottawa on Climate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image: Justin Trudeau

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

Richard Kinder, Houston-based billionaire and CEO of Kinder Morgan Inc., told an industry audience last week the TransMountain pipeline expansion project “will go forward” if granted approval at the federal level, despite growing and very vocal opposition to the project in British Columbia.

Kinder said pipeline opponents are using “spurious arguments” to purposely strangle pipeline projects across North America as a means of fighting development in the Alberta oilsands.

“I am sure there are legitimate concerns about any mega infrastructure development, but a lot of this is [about] the pipeline as a choke point to get at production of the oilsands, which there are people in Canada and the U.S. who want to strangle that altogether,” Kinder said.

Kinder’s comments seem to affirm criticism that the company is refusing to take local opposition seriously.

“Rich Kinder's optimism shows he really does not understand B.C.,” Tzeporah Berman, adjunct professor of environmental studies at York University, told DeSmog Canada. “British Columbians love this coast,” she added, noting the recent bunker fuel spill in Vancouver’s English Bay “was a real wake up call.”

“Rich Kinder's confidence is surprising given Enbridge's Northern Gateway fiasco, the looming Supreme Court challenges to the National Energy Board’s pipeline review, the First Nations court cases and the polling showing that the vast majority of British Columbians are opposed to his project.”

The TransMountain review process has been fraught with tensions between the National Energy Board (NEB) and municipal authorities, environmental organizations and local First Nations.

Several major environmental organizations along with two opposition parties are calling on Premier Christy Clark to pull out of the federal review process. The call for withdrawal is supported by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities and coastal First Nations.

Frustration with the review process has grown steadily in recent months, led in part by Kinder Morgan’s refusal to disclose information to intervenors. In addition, the NEB process prevented many members of the public — including climate scientists and other experts — from participating due to new exclusive rules.

“If the NEB really wanted to hear from British Columbians, why didn’t they design a process where our voices could be heard?” Caitlyn Vernon from the Sierra Club B.C. asked. “That’s why the B.C. government needs to step in and create a review that includes local voices, respects municipalities and First Nations, and considers the full impacts of Kinder Morgan’s proposal — especially its contribution to climate change.”

Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, said Kinder’s recent claim points to a sense of entitlement prominent within industry.

"It is indicative of the hubris of the oil industry that CEOs assume that they have a right to build what they want and where they want,” Stewart said.

“Mr. Kinder is not only underestimating the depth of opposition to his new pipeline, but he also doesn't seem to understand that concern over climate change isn't going to go away." 

Eoin Madden from the Wilderness Committee said Kinder’s strong position is purely a matter of corporate posturing.

“To be honest, I don't think Rich Kinder lacks respect for the seriousness of pipeline opposition here in B.C.,” Madden said. “His role at Kinder Morgan demands that he publicly appear confident and supportive of the TransMountain pipeline project regardless of whether or not his moral and business sense screams that it’s a dead project."

He added the conversation around Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline played out in a similar way.

However, Madden said, “I do think Kinder is purposely blind to the public interest in this issue. Why? Because he is paid large amounts of money to be.”

But things may be different after the English Bay spill, Madden said. 

“One thing remains crystal clear in its aftermath: folks in this part of the world care deeply about the Salish Sea, and seeing those waters sullied really hurt.”

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 estimated 25,000 took to the streets of Quebec City Saturday to protest the federal government’s lack of leadership on climate change and unfaltering support for increased production in the Alberta oilsands.

“Our message is simple — yes to climate equals no to the tar sands,” Christian Simard, executive direct of Nature Quebec, said. Nature Quebec along with Greenpeace, Equiterre and the David Suzuki Foundation and other eastern Canadian environmental groups organized the demonstration — already being called the largest climate protest in Canada's history.

Demonstrators filled the streets of Quebec City’s historic quarter demanding the nation's premiers be climate leaders and reject proposed pipeline projects like TransCanada’s Energy East and Kinder Morgan’s TransMountain.

“We don’t want to see the premiers under the cover of a national energy strategy agreeing to help Alberta expand the tar sands. A national energy strategy needs also to be a climate strategy,” Adam Scott, climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence Canada, told DeSmog Canada.

All premiers will be in Quebec City next week, save Nova Scotia's Stephen McNeil, for the annual premiers’ summit.

Update April 15: B.C. premier Christy Clark and Alberta premier Jim Prentice also declined to attend the climate summit. For details on the province's role in the summit read our DeSmog Canada Primer: How is Your Province Acting on Climate? A Primer for the Premier's Climate Summit.

Discussions on new oil pipeline projects will feature prominently during this year’s meeting which has the sole focus of addressing climate change. The oilsands and pipeline industry has run up against roadblocks in recent years in British Columbia, the United States and now Quebec while seeking public approval for major projects designed to export oilsands bitumen to international markets.

Thousands march on the streets of Quebec City. Photo: Derek Leahy

“Quebec and Ontario are facing the prospect of the largest tar sands pipeline in North America in Energy East. Ontario and Quebec need to decide if they will take climate change seriously and say no to Energy East,” Scott told DeSmog Canada.

Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne and Quebec premier Philippe Couillard have both professed a desire to be ‘climate leaders.’ Both also support the 1.1 million barrels-a-day Energy East pipeline expected to travel through their provinces.  

The turnout in Quebec City for the ‘Act on Climate’ march may be an indicator Wynne and Coulliard, by supporting Energy East, may find their positions offside in their respective provinces. According to a recent poll, one in two Canadians are against the west-to-east pipeline project.

“There is no compromise between climate change and tar sands expansion — it is just not possible,” Simard told DeSmog Canada.

A new report released this week by Environmental Defence and Greenpeace argues it is highly unlikely Canada can meet any greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and grow the oilsands at the same time. If the oilsands continue to grow, by 2020 Alberta will produce as much greenhouse gas emissions as B.C., Ontario and Quebec combined. Alberta compromises only eleven per cent of Canada’s total population.

“It’s ridiculous that politicians claim to want to address climate change while also wanting tar sands production to grow. These are totally incompatible goals,” Dale Marshall, national program manager at Environmental Defence and co-author of the report, said.

Act on Climate rally. Photo: Derek Leahy

As part of the upcoming United Nations climate talks in Paris this year, Canada was suppose to table plans on how the country will make deep reductions in emissions output. No such plans surfaced from Ottawa. South of the border, the U.S. and Mexico agreed to a joint task force on climate policy. Canada decline to participate in that agreement.

“We march today for a Canada we can be proud of again. It’s time for climate policy to be developed in Ottawa, not in the oil patch,” Tzeporah Berman, co-founder of ForestEthics, said.

Photo: Derek Leahy

Students groups, First Nations, unions and other segments of civil society all participated in today’s march.

Image Credit: Derek Leahy

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 group of citizens fighting to speak about climate change and the oilsands at National Energy Board (NEB) reviews of pipeline projects, like the current Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, are taking their battle all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The group, comprised of landowners, academics, owners of business and many others, filed a constitutional challenge against the NEB’s restrictive policies that limit public participation and prevent discussion of climate and upstream oil and gas activities.

The purpose of taking the challenge to the Supreme Court “is to ask that Court to direct the NEB to do its job properly," David Martin, legal counsel, explained in a statement.

“The NEB's claim that it cannot consider scientific evidence regarding the long term impacts of the export of bitumen is simply wrong," Martin said.

"Instead the NEB is making a misguided choice to adopt an unconstitutionally narrow interpretation of its jurisdiction so as to avoid having to address the real competing public interests that pipeline approval applications necessarily entail."

In 2012, the federal government amended the National Energy Board Act, giving the NEB the final say in major infrastructure projects including pipelines.

The change, made through the infamous omnibus budget bill C-38, was accompanied by new rules limiting the length of hearings, who can participate in those hearings and what they can speak about.

“Given the potential environmental and health impacts of these pipeline projects, full public hearings on the merits and risks of the proposals are necessary to properly assess the public interest. This is precisely what the NEB has refused to do,” Martin said.

Over 468 individuals were prevented from participating in the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline hearing process in April 2014. A group of 27 climate experts were prevented from participating on the basis that they wanted to dicuss the implications of the project for Canada's climate targets. 

The following month a small group including ForestEthics Advocacy Association and long-time environmentalist and author Tzeporah Berman, filed two motions with the NEB, challenging the constitutionality of the board’s exclusion of members of the public.

The NEB struck down the motions in October 2014, stating public hearings are not a forum for free expression.

Following a failed attempt to challenge the NEB in the Federal Court of Appeals, the group was left with no choice but to seek leave for appeal at the highest level in the Supreme Court of Canada.

“Due to rising public concern, the new CEO of the NEB Peter Watson has been touring the country telling Canadians the NEB does not have the mandate to look at issues related to climate change, and this is simply untrue,” Berman, applicant in the Supreme Court challenge, said.

“This case makes it clear that the Harper government gave them the mandate in Bill C-38 when they eliminated independent environmental assessments and gave the NEB broad jurisdiction to consider environmental impacts.”

The group argues the NEB’s role in assessing the long-term impacts of projects like pipelines — including expansion of the oilsands and associated climate impacts — “is a quintessential issue of national importance.”

Public participation in such assessments, the group also states, “is essential to democracy under the rule of law, particularly in a country whose economy and future is closely tied to the intelligent exploitation of our natural resources.” 

The Supreme Court of Canada has the authority to review any decisions made in the Federal Court of Appeal that involves matters of public importance.

The group advancing the challenge hopes the Supreme Court will restore the purpose of the NEB Act, to enable public participation and include public interest in a long-term assessment of major infrastructure projects like pipelines.

The decision will affect not only the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, but will have implications for the Enbridge Line 9 project planned to carry oilsands crude between Ontario and Quebec as well as TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline, a massive project projected to carry more than 1 million barrels of oilsands crude to export facilities in New Brunswick each day.

Last month a coalition of groups including 350.org and LeadNow delivered a petition signed by more than 100,000 Canadians that demanded the NEB consider climate change in its review of the Energy East oilsands pipeline project.

Image Credit: Zhu 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.

The National Energy Board (NEB), Canada’s federal pipeline regulator, has come under tremendous public criticism over the last three years for limiting public participation in its review of major oil pipeline proposals. In recent years the board has denied hundreds of Canadians an opportunity to voice their concerns on projects like Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline and Enbridge’s Line 9.

TransCanada’s Energy East, Canada’s largest proposed oil pipeline, is the newest project to land on the NEB’s desk. Despite major barriers to participation in the public hearing process, Canadians are preparing to apply in droves, even if just for the opportunity to be officially rejected from the process.

“We can’t sit back and we can’t afford the luxury of despair," Donna Sinclair of North Bay, Ontario said. "We need to resist efforts to shut us out of the process.”

Sinclair, who was denied the opportunity to submit a letter of comment regarding the Line 9 pipeline project in 2013, plans on applying to participate in the NEB review process for Energy East.

Why Participate in a Broken Process?

Despair about the process, especially for pipeline critics like Sinclair, is understandable enough. After recent changes to federal legislation the NEB now limits participation only to members of the public the board believes are “directly affected” or possess “relevant information or expertise” on a given project.

“The narrow restrictions on speech are completely anti-democratic,” Sinclair told DeSmog.

Canadians wishing to submit comments to the NEB on the 1.1 million barrels-a-day Energy East pipeline must complete the board’s ‘application to participate’ form by March. Completion of the form does not guarantee one’s participation in the NEB-run public hearing process.

What qualifies an individual as having the relevant level of expertise can at times be difficulty to ascertain. Last spring the NEB refused the application of 27 scientists and experts from B.C. universities who registered to participate in the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline hearings.

Over two thousand people and organizations applied to participate in the NEB Trans Mountain hearings. Four hundred and sixty-eight were rejected outright.

The approval of the contentious Northern Gateway pipeline, despite broad public opposition, worked to convince many British Columbians that the board’s only real authority resides in its ability to dictate approval conditions. The NEB subjected the Northern Gateway pipeline’s approval to a hefty total of 209 conditions. 

Further weakening the NEB’s authority, thanks to omnibus budget bill C-38, decisions by the board are now subject to federal cabinet approval, leaving what was previously a quasi-judicious and independent decision ultimately in the hands of politicians.

Even individuals from the energy industry are losing faith in the process. Last November, Mark Eliesen, a former energy executive with 40 years experience, publicly quit the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain public hearings, calling the NEB process "fraudulent" and a "public deception." Even B.C.'s environment minister Mark Polak said the province has had its "own issues with the process," which include the NEB defending Kinder Morgan's right to withhold critical information on things like spill response measures.

In this light, it is perhaps astonishing Canadians continue to apply en masse to be heard by the NEB on new proposed pipelines like Energy East.

So why does the public still try to elbow its way into a broken process which decides, ostensibly without their regard, the fate of new pipelines in Canada?

Hearings Drive Public Awareness, Opposition

“Participating in the NEB process helps to bring forward new information and keep the issue alive so that awareness and opposition grows,” Tzeporah Berman, legendary B.C. environmentalist and co-founder of ForestEthics, told DeSmog Canada.

“In the end the NEB may approve a project, but if you have approval without social license and are facing lawsuits, difficulty with provincial permits and massive protests, the barriers to development are pretty serious,” she said.

The Northern Gateway pipeline is a prime example.

Over one thousand five hundred Canadians presented oral statements against the pipeline to the NEB. Attempts to criticize pipeline opponents – most infamously in former Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver’s ‘foreign funded radicals’ letter – drove further support for the opposition movement.

Defend Our Coast Protest Against the Northern Gateway Pipeline in 2012.

The NEB ultimately approved the project, yet the hearing process generated a massive anti-pipeline coalition comprised of engineers, scientists, First Nations, municipalities, environmental organizations and a good portion of the general public.

Strong social pressure undoubtedly influenced the unprecedented 209 conditions the NEB eventually attached to the pipeline’s approval. Meeting every condition may actually be impossible for the project’s proponent, Enbridge.

The NEB’s conditions for Enbridge’s Line 9 project in Ontario and Quebec have similarly delayed the pipeline’s progress.

Public concern and criticism may not sway the NEB’s recommendation or the federal government’s decision on a project, but it is certainly leaving its mark in other ways.

The Public Forces Unique Pipeline Issues To the Surface

“Public participation in recent pipeline processes have brought forth some unique issues,” Tanya Nayler, staff lawyer with the Ecojustice, an environmental law advocacy group, said.

For example, the ongoing NEB review of Trans Mountain has triggered a full on debate on where municipal by-laws and rights stand in relation to the powers of the NEB (not to mention a showdown on Burnaby Mountain last year).

The question of dilbit or diluted bitumen’s behaviour in water was brought to the fore largely because of the Northern Gateway hearings. Subsequent federal reports confirmed the substance sinks when mixed with sediment although recently-released government documents show just how little is known about the effects of dilbit when spilled into water.

For existing pipelines like Energy East, involvement in the NEB process means information that might otherwise be kept from the public becomes a matter of record.

Through information requests, participants in the Enbridge Line 9 hearings gained access to disconcerting information about the condition of the 40-year pipeline. Information requests also revealed Enbridge had failed to assess what would happen in the event of a pipeline rupture.

“New information is essential to driving a public narrative about the risks associated with these projects,” Berman said. 

Three thousand kilometers of the proposed Energy East pipeline travelling through Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario is comprised of an existing TransCanada natural gas pipeline. If approved that gas line will be converted to carry heavy crude and dilbit. One thousand six hundred kilometers of additional pipe will be constructed in Quebec and New Brunswick to extend the line to export terminals.

NEB Is the Only Venue Canada Has To Discussion National Energy Projects

Outside the NEB, Canada simply has no alternate venue where national issues connected to new pipelines can be discussed, leading participants to argue for much-needed structural change.

“Although I do agree the NEB has become slanted towards approvals, it is important to have the public participate in and challenge the process in order to highlight the problems in need of fixing,” Nayler said.

Of particular concern is the NEB’s refusal to consider the climate impacts of pipelines. From the outset, the board deemed climate impacts, and especially upstream emissions from the Alberta oilsands, as outside the purview of public hearings on the Northern Gateway, Trans Mountain and Energy East pipelines.

At 1.1 million barrels-a-day, Energy East would increase oilsands or tar sands production in Alberta by at least one third. The energy-intensive oilsands are Canada’s fastest growing source of GHG emissions.

Recently the U.S. EPA acknowledged the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry Alberta oilsands crude to export facilities in the Gulf of Mexico, would be the climate equivalent of adding 5.7 million new passenger cars to the road.

“The NEB is the only place we can try and be heard. Every other level of climate and environmental legislation has been removed by the Conservatives,” Cam Fenton, tar sands campaigner for 350.org, said.

350.org has launched an online campaign encouraging the public to apply to take part in the NEB process on Energy East, but explicitly on the grounds of addressing climate change – a demand that is likely to have consequences.

It was precisely for wanting to address climate change that the NEB denied the 27 experts mentioned above participation in the Trans Mountain public hearing process.

“We are going to force the NEB to reject all these people. We need to hold the NEB and the process accountable for not allowing people to speak about climate change,” Fenton told DeSmog Canada.

Over the last year, 350.org has collected one hundred thousand signatures from Canadians wanting the board to consider climate change in its Energy East decision.

Last week representatives traveled to Calgary to physically hand the petition to the NEB.

Image Credit: Light Brigading via Flickr, LeadNow, Greenpeace, TransCanada 

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 award-winning environmental campaigner and author Tzeporah Berman. It was originally published in The Globe and Mail and is republished here with permission.

I have family who work in the oilsands. They know that I have been a vocal critic of current oilsands operations and plans for expansion, yet they didn’t hesitate to welcome me last week into their homes and to invite me to a family gathering in Canmore. We had a wonderful time. We shared some memories, laughed a lot and even tackled some hard stuff. The conversations were rich and surprisingly easy. Perhaps in part because although we have different opinions there already was a basis of trust and shared experiences.

The weekend sits in stark contrast for me to the ugly polarizing and simplistic debate about oilsands and pipelines our country is embroiled in. It was also an important reminder for me of a simple lesson I learned during the war in the woods in the ’90’s – that there are good people everywhere and sometimes the people you need the most to figure out intransigent problems are the folks on the so-called other side of the fence. I left thinking about how important it is for us to overcome the ‘taking sides’ attitude over oilsands, pipelines and climate change that has taken root in our country and find ways to create real conversations about solutions to some of the greatest challenges of our age.

One of the interesting things I am noticing lately is whether it is with my family members, industry executives or workers coming on or off shifts that I have had a chance to talk to, it really doesn’t take long to find common ground in the oilsands debate across what is often portrayed as enemy lines.

Within a couple of minutes there is usually agreement that there are problems. That we have some things to be proud of and also lots of issues to figure out. There is a shared concern about the pace of growth and a concern about water and growing toxic impacts. There is confusion about climate impacts but general agreement we need a real conversation about how to balance today’s challenges like climate change with the need for jobs and how to deal with our current dependence on oil.

On my part these conversations have made me realize that in our frustration to highlight the dangers of our current trajectory – a dramatic and escalating push for expansion of the oilsands, more pipelines, more oil tankers, more oil railcars – many of us have minimized how difficult these challenges are to address and how hard reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is going to be, especially for those families currently dependent on the oilsands for their livelihoods.

Yet that sure doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be trying to figure it out. Together.

Imagine if we had a government who actually assessed all the economic opportunities for Canada and created programs to support the development of the high tech, clean energy, manufacturing, film or tourism industries as aggressively as they have been pushing pipelines as nation building?

What if we had a senate hearings on how to build community resiliency in the face of the dramatic rise of extreme weather or how to build safe, clean jobs in Canada while reducing pollution instead of senate hearings on whether to include ‘environmentalism in the new formal definition of domestic terrorism.’

What if instead of prohibiting so-called ‘critics’ in the regulatory reviews for new oilsands projects or refusing to allow intervenors in pipeline hearings to talk about climate change or environmental upstream and downstream impacts, our governments actually encouraged open, transparent debate and decision making?

Imagine what we could accomplish if we agreed we need to reduce pollution to fight climate change while increasing jobs and began to work together to figure out a path forward for Canada that benefitted all our families instead of just delaying critical policies (like oil and gas regulations) year after year.

Imagine if energy companies decided to lead the transition to renewables and critics acknowledged that we can’t shut down the oilsands overnight and got serious about a conversation that looked at how much oil we will need and for how long?

I am not suggesting these are easy conversations or that the solutions are painless but they will remain polarizing, intransigent problems as long as we continue to just scream across the fence at each other. It’s time for all of us to stop accepting schoolyard bullying and ideology in place of governance. The last couple of years it has felt a lot like we have propaganda masquerading as policy.

Perhaps its time for academics, scientists, environmental organizations and industry to start trying to fill this leadership vacuum in Canada and work to create some real conversations, pull the issues apart and develop some options and pathways forward.

We need to look at issues of pace and scale, if it is possible to ‘clean up’ the oilsands, whether we can keep the world at safe climate levels and still grow the oilsands, whether expansion needs to be capped, and if it’s really possible to build alternatives so that in the next 30-50 years we can move away oil. None of us on our own has all the answers but together maybe we can create a real conversation that respects our current challenges and each other.

Image Credit: Refinery in the Alberta oilsands. 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.