Tired of the same old battles that play out in the news? So are we.

We’re also not shy about the fact we think Canada’s greatest assets are our people, our lakes, our rivers, our forests. We tell stories Canada’s big news outlets miss and hustle to help our readers make sense of complex (sometimes downright messy) issues.

As a non-profit organization, our goal isn’t to sell advertising or to please corporate bigwigs — it’s to bring evidence-based news and analysis to the surface for all Canadians.

Meet the Narwhal.

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 a sit-down video interview, former B.C. Premier Mike Harcourt told DeSmog Canada the Site C dam, proposed for the Peace River, is “a bad idea” and should be abandoned immediately.

“Site C is going to be a disaster economically, environmentally, culturally for First Nations and shouldn’t be built,” Harcourt said.

Site C, originally projected to cost B.C. ratepayers $5.5 billion, is now estimated to cost $9 billion.

Harcourt said Site C follows a long history of hydro project cost overruns.

“The average overage cost of dams worldwide over the last 70 years have averaged 90 per cent overage. So you can assume Site C is going to cost, probably, $15 billion to $17 billion dollars,” he said.

https://www.facebook.com/DesmogCanada/videos/1054438974661662/

“I think economically it’s just not going to cut it.”

The crux of Harcourt’s criticism of Site C, a project first proposed in the 1980s, is the lack of growth in electricity demand in the province.

Demand for electricity in B.C. has been flat over the last 11 years, Harcourt said.

“In that sense you don’t need it, there’s not the demand. Economically you’re going to be bankrupting BC Hydro and seriously harming the credit of British Columbia.”

That could deter businesses from operating in B.C., he said, all when there is no need for the power.

The lack of customers for Site C electricity was evidenced in Premier Christy Clark’s suggestion the power could be sold to Alberta to electrify the oilsands.

Harcourt said the idea is similar to the B.C. Liberal’s promise to create a liquefied natural gas empire..

“It’s like the LNG pipe dream,” he said.

“I haven’t heard any expression of interest from the Alberta government and the oilsands industry in doing that. And what would the cost of the transmission line be on top of the $15 billion to $17 billion that the dam would cost?

“It’s a weak version of field of dreams: build it and hope, hope, hope there will be a customer down the line.”

Possible to stop #SiteC like the 8-lane hwy once slated for NShore, #StanleyPark, #Gastown & #YVR #Chinatown https://t.co/1CCLxu3PKz #bcpoli pic.twitter.com/jTyb3H0GcE

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) March 3, 2017

Ongoing construction of Site C should be immediately halted, Harcourt said. “It’s never beyond the point of no return.”

He pointed to an analogous example from the 1960s, when Harcourt was a lawyer for the Chinese community in Vancouver’s Chinatown and Strathcona. At that time there was a plan to build an eight-lane freeway along Stanley Park and through the east side of downtown Vancouver.

“We stopped it cold. But we still had part of it built, the Georgia Viaducts, and now we’re tearing them  — at the cost of $200 million — that last part of that really bad idea.”

The Site C dam is 18 months into construction on what is projected to be an eight-year timeline. So far, a worker’s camp has been built and a small section of river valley has been cleared. Ultimately, more than 100 kilometres of river valley, including valuable farmland, will be cleared to make way for the dam’s reservoir.

“It’s not too late,” Harcourt said.

Harcourt joins Harry Swain, the chair of the provincial-federal panel that reviewed the Site C dam, and former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen in criticizing the project.

The provincial NDP has vowed to send the dam for an independent review by the B.C. Utilities Commission if elected in May.  The B.C. Liberals exempted Site C from a utilities commission review and Premier Christy Clark has vowed to get the project “past the point of no return” before the May 9th election.

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.

On Wednesday the province of B.C. granted final approval for the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline. Exactly one year earlier B.C. announced its official opposition to the pipeline in a final submission to the National Energy Board.

In that final submission B.C. said the pipeline posed unacceptable oil spill risks to the province’s land and water.

Since 2013 B.C. has upheld five conditions that must be met for a pipeline project to receive provincial support. Marine and oil spill response capabilties are two of those conditions.

“We have not at this time seen evidence in the NEB process that those conditions have been met,” B.C. environment minister Mary Polak told the press last year.

Now, one year later, B.C. has reversed its position and thrown its support behind the oil pipeline project.

What has happened in the meantime to justify the reversal of position? One thing that’s for sure is Kinder Morgan did not submit more detailed oil spill response plans.

Emma Gilchrist and I discuss.

Image: 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.

British Columbians overwhelmingly want BC Hydro’s Site C dam sent for an independent review and support pausing construction on the $8.8 billion project while alternatives are investigated, according to a new poll conducted by Insights West.

The poll, sponsored by readers of DeSmog Canada, found that 73 per cent of British Columbians support sending the Site C dam for an independent review of both costs and demand, as recommended by the Joint Review Panel in its 2014 report.

Seven in 10 respondents supported pausing construction of Site C to investigate alternatives to meet future power demand.

“When pondering Site C, British Columbians are favouring caution and not hubris,” said Mario Canseco, vice president of public affairs at Insights West. “Most are willing to switch the focus to efficiency and alternative sources.”

Construction on the $8.8 billion Site C dam started in 2015 and is scheduled for completion in 2024. The project has been plagued by court challenges and questions about cost and demand from high-profile experts, including Harry Swain, the man who chaired the federal-provincial panel on Site C, and Marc Eliesen, who has been chair or CEO of BC Hydro, Manitoba Hydro and Ontario Hydro.

“What they’re doing with Site C is unprecedented in Canada,” Eliesen told DeSmog Canada. “You’ve never had a project in the billions of dollars run by a provincial utility go through without any review by the utilities board.”

Survey results suggest British Columbians prefer taking a more measured approach to the project, which Premier Christy Clark has promised to get to “the point of no return.”

“We’re not too late to either cancel or suspend Site C while a full and impartial, objective review is taken," Eliesen said. "There have been a number of major hydro developments in Canada that were subsequently cancelled when the forecasts that came out two to three years later were different than the ones used to justify the project."

Eliesen pointed to the Limestone Generating Station in Manitoba as an example. Work on that dam began in 1976, but was suspended in 1978 after electricity demand forecasts changed.

"From a business case, they realized it was stupid to go ahead building a station when at the end of the day they’d be left with a white elephant and they’d have to dump the results of that power, 1,400 megawatts, on the spot market. They would have lost their shirt and the ratepayers of Manitoba would have paid heavily for it," Eliesen said.

The project resumed in 1985 after a major firm contract was negotiated between Manitoba and Minnesota for 500 megawatts.

"Unless you do that in advance, then you’re going to have a white elephant because the cost of generating electricity is far more than any prices you can get on the spot market," Eliesen said.

"If BC Hydro wanted to do something on a major scale of building the station and exporting the power … they should have gone out and negotiated what is called a firm power contract."

That hasn't happened and BC Hydro has indicated that the province will not need new power until 2028 at the earliest. If demand for more power arises in the future, nine in ten British Columbians support investing in energy efficiency measures (92 per cent) and adding more wind, solar and geothermal power to the grid as needed (also 92 per cent). Just over a third (37 per cent) favour building large hydro dams.

The Joint Review Panel found the province had failed to investigate alternatives to building the Site C dam, such as geothermal energy. According to BC Hydro’s own estimates, geothermal could replace two-thirds of the power that could be generated by the Site C dam.

Seventy-seven per cent of British Columbians support investing in geothermal (40 per cent “strongly”) rather than building a large hydro dam.

The Insights West poll found more British Columbians outright oppose the Site C dam (44 per cent, 21 per cent strongly) than support it (39 per cent, 11 per cent strongly).

If Site C does go ahead, Eliesen says ratepayers will be in store for massive rate increases.

"It will destroy our ability to generate employment and jobs because the high electricity rates for commercial and small business," he said.

VIDEO: 70% of British Columbians Support Pausing #SiteC Dam Construction, New Poll Finds https://t.co/nKAqApyT8k #bcpoli #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 16, 2016

Across the country, Newfoundand’s Muskrat Falls dam has garnered a lot of attention lately, as its cost has ballooned to $11.4 billion, up $4 billion since 2012.

For the average homeowner, it’s estimated this will add an extra $150 per month in power costs. The CEO of the province’s power corporation, Nalcor, has said power demand forecasts were off and the dam was not the right choice for the power needs of the province.

“The project is identical to Site C in the sense that the project went ahead without proper due diligence and the business case was not adequately undertaken and in a short period of time major changes took place which resulted in a phenomenal escalation of costs," Eliesen.

"Site C if it goes ahead it will go down as one big white elephant. Unfortunately the people who made that decision won’t be around in 2024 or 2026," he said.

"There is a window for that decision to be changed and it can be changed with the forthcoming election."

Adrian Dix, the NDP critic for BC Hydro, said the polling results came as no surprise.

"What is interesting is the difference between this poll and the ones sponsored by BC Hydro," Dix said. "It really shows that having accurate information about Site C makes a huge difference in people’s response."

Dix said the BC Liberals have exaggerated future demand to justify the project.

"Since then, all of the Liberals and BC Hydro’s estimates about future energy need have been proven to be massively in error," he told DeSmog Canada.  "The Liberals have recklessly gone ahead without evidence and have put all of us at risk — financial and otherwise."

Dix said the NDP sticks by its position that Site C must undergo an independent review.

The online study was conducted by Insights West from October 27 to October 30, 2016, among 821 adult residents of British Columbia. The data has been statistically weighted according to Canadian census figures for age, gender and region in British Columbia. The margin of error—which measures sample variability—is +/- 3.5 percentage points, nineteen times out of twenty.

View the data tabulations and the full report.

Photo:  ©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.

Last week DeSmog Canada published a video about the Site C dam on Facebook that — after generating nearly 120,000 views in 36 hours — was suddenly removed due to a complaint lodged by True North Entertainment, a B.C. government contractor.

The video, Cutting Through the Spin on the Site C Dam, featured an interview with Harry Swain, chair of the provincial-federal panel responsible for reviewing the controversial hydro dam.

Swain, a high-profile critic of Site C, explained why he thinks it’s a mistake to build the dam and how the B.C. government has changed its story over the years to justify the $9-billion project, the most expensive public infrastructure project in the province’s history.

The five-minute video featured footage almost exclusively filmed by DeSmog Canada but also included some small selections of b-roll footage from the Province of B.C.’s YouTube page.

More than 3,300 people had shared the video on Facebook as of Thursday night but come Friday morning, the video had vanished from every single page it previously appeared on.

A notification from Facebook simply stated the video was removed due to a copyright infringement complaint. The only recourse available was to discuss the matter with Kyle Koch, president and creative director for True North Entertainment, the individual who filed the complaint.

In a conversation with DeSmog Canada, Koch refused to specifically identify what footage he believed violated intellectual property rights.

The vast majority of the media created for the Province of B.C. is licensed under Creative Commons terms, ensuring photos and video paid for with provincial tax-dollars are available for public use with attribution.

But Koch said the Site C video drew from material his company licensed to the province under a one-time use only licence.

“The bottom line is they didn’t have a big budget. We gave them some opportunity to have some elements from our library,” Koch said.

Although he wouldn’t specify, it appears the footage Koch was referring to originated in a Government of B.C. promotional video for “Clean LNG.”

The video, which appeared on the province’s YouTube page is licensed under a “Standard YouTube Licence,” meaning it cannot be re-used. DeSmog Canada erred in drawing from that video.

Today we are releasing a revised version of the Site C film without the b-roll from that particular video.

The BC Liberals and Premier Christy Clark have come under criticism recently for hefty promotional budgets used to advertise government’s activities, policies and projects.

DeSmog Canada has learned that $1,641,253 in taxpayers dollars have been paid to True North Media for services provided to the government since 2006.

In this instance, the province produced tax-dollar-funded promotional material that can not be repurposed in other (even non-profit) media productions, but that is not necessarily the standard for governments.

The United States government, for example, doesn’t hold copyright over any material it produces.

All of this raises the question: if content is produced with government messaging, promoted on their channels and paid for with public dollars, shouldn’t the government hold copyright and make it available to the public who paid for it?

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.

There are a number of arguments against the controversial Site C dam, planned for the Peace River Valley: it floods First Nations land against their consent; it will destroy prized agricultural land; it requires expropriating land from B.C. families and farmers; it will increase the cost of electricity for power B.C. doesn’t even need.

A variety of experts have also come forward to say the project wasn’t properly reviewed and that the B.C. government failed to explore alternatives to the $9 billion project — the most expensive public infrastructure project in the province’s history.

But what are the arguments for the Site C dam? And do they have any merit?

DeSmog Canada’s Emma Gilchrist met with Harry Swain, the man appointed by the B.C. government to chair the joint review panel for Site C, to discuss some of the most commonly used arguments to justify the project.

Swain is one of the most qualified experts in the country to discuss the pros and cons of the Site C dam. Watch the video below for his take. *Update: This is a new cut of the video, after the first was subject to a complaint.

Swain explains the rationale for building the dam has shifted dramatically over time, calling into question the stated need for the project.

“They started of course by saying that Site C was necessary for ordinary domestic consumption,” Swain says. “It had nothing to do with LNG at all and then the story changed a little bit as they came to realize that demand from ordinary sources was not increasing very much — in fact at all.”

“And now third we’ve seen with the, shall we say charitably, the delay in the LNG industry and its possible lack of demand for grid electricity this interesting opening to Alberta.”

Last spring Christy Clark suggested power from the Site C dam could be used to electrify the Alberta oilsands.

“Selling power to Alberta for the oilsands is a bit of a Hail Mary play, I think,” Swain says.

“There is presently not the capacity to move it, you’d have to build a lot of new transmission. The power would not be as cheap as Alberta can manufacture itself, either from its own supplies of gas or from wind, which is a big deal on the prairies.”

“If it came about, it would merely lock in a big loss.”

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.

Justin Trudeau and his cabinet must uphold their promise to respect First Nations rights when it comes to federal decision-making for the Site C dam, federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May told DeSmog Canada while visiting a portion of the Peace River that will be flooded should the $9-billion project proceed.

“To me this project represents the litmus test for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his entire cabinet in their central commitment to establish a nation to nation relationship built on respect for Canada’s Fist Nations,” May said during an interview for a new DeSmog Canada Site C video.

May and DeSmog Canada were in the Peace Valley for the annual Paddle for the Peace where hundreds of people representing local landowners, First Nations, and environmental organizations voiced their opposition to the Site C dam.

“I’ve been working to stop Site C for a long time,” May said. “I've been trying the best I can to make sure every member of Parliament understands we can't give any more permits out without violating relations with First Nations.”

Chief Roland Willson from the West Moberly First Nations said the project violates the rights of Treaty 8 First Nations.

“The Site C dam impacts us by destroying the last functional 80 kilometres of the Peace River valley that we have left,” he said.

“We’re fighting Site C in the courts because it’s the right thing to do,” Willson said, adding that under Treaty 8 his nation has the right to hunt, fish and gather medicines on their traditional territory in perpetuity.

“B.C. is ignoring — and Canada is ignoring — its obligation to the treaty.”

The West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations are fighting the Site C dam in both B.C. and federal courts.

Over 250 academics, several of Canada’s most prominent environmental organizations and human rights group Amnesty International have criticized the B.C. government’s decision to forge ahead with Site C construction despite the pending legal challenges.

"As a new Liberal government they made promises to science-based evidence-based decision making, to respect for First Nations,” May said. "If they take any of those commitments seriously they can’t issue a single additional permit." 

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

When the Catalyst Paper Company’s pulp mill was renovated in the 1980s, ancestral remains of the Halalt First Nation were found underneath a cement helicopter pad. The discovery was yet another piece of evidence that the mill, located in Crofton, B.C. about 45 kilometres north of Victoria, was built on culturally sensitive First Nation’s territory.

But according to the Halalt First Nation, cultural damage is only a part of the harm caused by the industrial facility, operating since 1957, that is responsible for the release of endocrine-disrupting and cancer-causing dioxins and furans into the local environment.

According to Eli Enns, director of operations for the Halaht, the ongoing pollution in the region is wreaking havoc on the local environment.

“You have the Crofton mill itself which has unfortunately cemented right over sacred burial sites of the Halalt Coast Salish peoples,” Enns says in a new film, premiered by the nation here on DeSmog Canada (see below).

“It has totally destroyed the estuary and traditional food systems for the Halalt. It has inundated the airshed with all kinds of toxic pollutants which will probably have long lasting and unpredictable effects on the health of the Halalt people and other local communities.”

Dioxins and furans, the byproduct of a chlorine bleaching process, bioaccumulate in the food chain and are stored in the fatty tissues of animals. The presence of dioxins in animals has been linked to birth defects, spontaneous abortions and tumors.

A 1991 report prepared for the B.C. Aquaculture Research and Development Council found blue heron near the Crofton mill suffering reproductive failure contained high levels of dioxins in their tissue.

Enns says the pollution has severely impacted the community and its ability to live in and off the land.

“The community’s use and enjoyment of their own village has been highly intruded upon,” he said.

The federal government released new rules regulating the release of dioxins and furans from pulp and paper mills in 1992, although for communities living near major polluters like the Crofton mill, it was too little too late. Major damage to fisheries near Crofton led to permanent closures in the Crofton region.

Enns told DeSmog Canada that new regulations or cleaner operations won’t help resolve the mill’s legacy pollution issues.

“There is no elimination that has happened.”

In 2015 Environment Canada listed the Crofton mill as the third largest source of air pollution in B.C. for 2013.

“Obviously you can create regulations on things but that doesn’t mean everyone is complying,” Enns said.

“There was unregulated polluting for a long time and now there may be certain measure that have been put into place to reduce those dioxins and furans but they are are still causing damage.”

The Halalt First Nation has launched a legal suit against Catalyst, claiming damages of $2 billion for impacts to biodiversity and local ecosystems as well as interference with aboriginal rights.

A second suit, launched by the Halalt along with two business partners —Sunvault Energy Inc. and Aboriginal Power Corp — claims an additional $100 million in damages as well as an injunction to permanently stop the mill’s activities.

The two cases were launched in January but have yet to make their way to the courts.

Halalt First Nations Elder Joseph Norris says he can recall his grandfather negotiating with the pulp mill in the 50s for the relocation of his people’s remains.

“They moved us out of there to where we are. He told them, ‘give us the opportunity to remove some of our ancient bones’…they didn’t care, they just built over [them],” Norris says in the film.

“The Halalt has taken the pulp mill to court… we’re not against what they’re doing and they have a lot of people working for them — but it’s what their distributing into our rivers and into our air.”

WATCH: Halalt #FirstNation’s Fight Against #VancouverIsland Pulp Mill Pollution https://t.co/lhaZ2WhoD7 #bcpoli pic.twitter.com/H18M6ceY11

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 20, 2016

Chief James Thomas of the Halalt First Nation says that before the mill was constructed his people were able to harvest seafood from the area without concern. Now, elevated levels of toxins present in the water have made it unsafe to do so.

“The carcinogens end up in the phytoplankton, the plankton feed the other animals and at the end of the day ends up in the food chain,” he said. “It accumulates faster probably in the birds than it does in us.”

“We’re not allowed to eat crabs out here anymore because of the dioxins and furans levels.”

Bill Bonsall, a Crofton resident and former cattle rancher, said his family has been on a local farm since 1873 and has since had to stop raising cows because of health problems they’ve traced back to contaminated water.

“If the cows don’t live on a farm you don’t make much money,” he said.

“The estuary is totally destroyed. It’s a disaster area now. How the hell are you going to live off the land when there’s nothing there?”

“I can remember this place for 80 years, vividly. I know there was fish in the creek, there were birds — it was beautiful.”

“There used to be seven oyster farms in the neighbourhood. Now there’s none, hasn’t been since the mill came in,” Bonsall says.

Chief Thomas says the entire region has been closed to fisheries because of the mill.

“You have a huge dead zone with no oxygen levels in this territory,” he says. “So baby fish coming out of the creek at the end of his knoll here, they go out there and their first breath in the ocean is in a zone with no oxygen."

For the Halalt, the negative effect of the mill on the environment means the end of a way of life.

“They’re destroying our way of life for the almighty dollar,” Thomas says. “We’re a non-treaty band, we’ve never extinguished anywhere our rights and titles.”

Thomas said elders in his community are passing away as the nation waits for resolution. He said ultimately the federal government is responsible for issuing the permits necessary to pollute.

For Norris, an elder participating in the battle, there is still a lesson to be learned from his grandfather’s teaching that you only take what you need.

“The younger generation needs to hear what it was like yesterday so they can build a better tomorrow,” he says.

Image: Crofton mill. Harvard Photos/Facebook

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 new video released today by DeSmog Canada features an exclusive video interview with Harry Swain, chair of the federal-provincial panel tasked with reviewing the controversial Site C dam.

“I think we’re making a big mistake, a very expensive one,” Swain says in the video. “Of the $9 billion it will cost, at least $7 billion will never be returned. You and I as rate payers will end up paying $7 billion bucks for something we get nothing for."

Since 2005, domestic demand for electricity in B.C. has been essentially flat, making it difficult to justify the dam which will flood 107 kilometres of the Peace River and destroy thousands of hectares of prime agricultural land.  

“There is no need for Site C,” Swain says. “If there was a need, we could meet it with a variety of other renewable and smaller scale sources.”

With a price tag of $8.8 billion, Site C dam is the most expensive public infrastructure project in B.C.’s history. The joint review panel that Swain chaired found demand for the power had not been proven and called for the project to be reviewed by the B.C. Utilities Commission — a recommendation the B.C. government ignored.

Swain first spoke out about the Site C dam last year, but this is the first video interview on the subject with the former deputy minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. 

“The provinces have the responsibility for the management of natural resources. I don’t think British Columbia has done its job,” Swain says, referring to B.C.’s failure to investigate alternatives to the Site C dam.

EXCLUSIVE video: review chair says there's no need for #SiteC https://t.co/HWLbWAhNiJ #bcpoli @christyclarkbc pic.twitter.com/5Cc1pprN4t

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) June 21, 2016

Three Decades and Counting: How B.C. Has Failed to Investigate Alternatives to Site C Dam

Swain outlined the economic case against the dam in an opinion piece in the Vancouver Sun on Friday.

The new DeSmog Canada video also features interviews with residents of the Peace River Valley.  

“We have to get away from this 1960s mentality of building large hydroelectric dams,” says farmer Ken Boon. “All you have to do is look around the world. They’ve come to their senses. They’re tearing them out.”

School teacher and mother of three Carolyn Beam says it’s not possible for BC Hydro to compensate her family for the loss of their home.

“I’d hate to have to tell my children in the future why we lost what we lost,” Beam says.

Field of Dreams: Meet the Peace Valley’s Farmers and Ranchers

The Royal Society of Canada recently called on the Prime Minister to halt construction on the project until after First Nations concerns have been heard, but the feds are so far trying to side step the issue.

For construction to continue on the Site C dam, the federal government must issue permits. But Prime Minister Trudeau vowed to start a new relationship with Canada’s indigenous peoples and two First Nations are challenging the dam in court.

Trudeau also recently signed on to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states indigenous peoples must give “free, prior and informed consent."

B.C. Premier Christy Clark has vowed to get the dam "past the point of no return."

Civil society organizations like Amnesty International, the David Suzuki Foundation and LeadNow are all calling on the federal government to halt construction.

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 week marks the one-year anniversary of the Mount Polley mine spill, the largest mining disaster in Canadian history. On August 4, 2014 an estimated 24 million cubic metres of mining waste spilled from a failed tailings impoundment, flowing down the Hazeltine Creek into Quesnel Lake, a local source of drinking water and home to an estimated quarter of the province’s sockeye salmon.

DeSmog Canada spoke with local resident and fisheries biologist Richard Holmes to discuss the anniversary of the accident. Holmes said some members of his community are disappointed the mine hasn’t done more to repair the social and economic damage done to residents in the wake of the spill.

Although the Mount Polley mine, owned by Imperial Metals, has put an estimated $67 million into stabilizing the Hazeltine Creek, Holmes said the area resembles a “pretty ditch” that won’t be suitable fish habitat for at least two more years.

“It’s disappointing,” Holmes said.

“The last public meeting was about a month ago and I was really disappointed to watch the mine and their consultants and the government people act like they’d just won the lottery. There were as happy as pigs in shit.”

Holmes said the company was eager to have the mine up and running again — something the province gave them approval to do last month. The mine partially reopened in July to the frustration of locals who feel not enough has been done to make reparations for the spill.

“I felt somewhat insulted actually,” Holmes said. “Here our community had just gone through this year of frustration with both parties and their main focus was the environment, which is good, there’s no doubt about that, but their second focus, an equally important focus was on the economics of it.”

“But they've forgotten completely about the social impacts and the cultural and economic impacts on the people in the community.”

Image Credit: Water destined for Quesnel Lake gathers in a sediment pond, March 2015. Photo: Farhan Umedaly 

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 Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Community Hearings are nearly complete, with two remaining sessions scheduled in Kelowna and Vancouver at the end of this month. Come February, the Joint Review Panel will move into the "Questioning Phase" of the final hearing, scheduled to end in May of this year. 

The hearings have provided an opportunity for the pipeline's opposition to state their concerns with the $6 billion project. Thousands of individuals applied to participate in the hearings as official 'intervenors,' to the chagrin of the federal ministries appointed to carry the process out. At this time last year federal Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, accused 'radical' environmentalists and 'extremists' of intentionally over-burdening the hearings. 

Yet many of those who live along the proposed pipeline route feel their concerns are legitimate and deserve to be heard, whether inside or outside the scheduled sessions. 

Some of the creative opposition British Columbians have expressed is captured in the short video 4000 Reasons, featured below. Created by the conservation group, Driftwood Foundation, 4000 Reasons shows that for every intervenor, you'll find another reason not to build the pipeline. 

4000 Reasons from Incite Media on Vimeo.

DeSmog asked Driftwood Foundation director, Wes Giesbrecht, to explain the inspiration behind the film and the festival it highlights.

1. What is the Driftwood Foundation?

Driftwood Foundation is a registered charity which was formed in Smithers, British Columbia, in 1991.  Our purposes in forming were to sponsor cultural events that would draw attention to the beauty and unique nature of the Bulkley Valley and to use research to promote full and informed public involvement in recreation and resource plans.

2. What was the original inspiration for the 4000 Reasons film? And can you explain the film's title?

The film is a snap-shot of the two-day 4000 Reasons Festival, an event that was planned by our directors over a nine-month period.  In keeping with our mandate, we wanted to use the arts to draw attention to the beauty of this area and the threat to it posed by this pipeline.

The title is a response to Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver’s statement that over 4000 people were ‘clogging’ the system by registering to appear before the Joint Review Panel.  We got the idea for this title from a festival performer who said that if 4000 people were going to speak to the panel that would be 4000 reasons to not build the pipeline.

3. What do people in your community feel is threatened by Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipeline?

The Skeena watershed (the Bulkley River is one tributary) is one of the few large watersheds in North America that is still intact.  The people in our community are most concerned about the quality of water in our river and the threat to our wild salmon stocks that this pipeline poses.  Our wild salmon resource supports a healthy and attractive lifestyle, a resource that is a significant economic factor in attracting people from all over the world.

4. Do the people in your community feel like their voices are being heard by Enbridge?

I think people feel that despite the cynicism about the effectiveness of the Joint Review Panel process, the chance to speak to something about which they are passionate has been a unifying and positive thing.  I also think people are hoping to influence the decision makers (JRP and the Federal Government) rather than Enbridge.

5. 4000 Reasons features a lot of creative expression from pipeline opponents. What is the value of artistry in a battle that seems dominated by political ideas of economy?

While economic arguments are important they are often incomplete and don’t take into account quality of life issues that are often overlooked in deciding the validity of industrial proposals.  The artistry seen in this film flows from the performers strong emotional connection to place.  I think the value of an artistic presentation is that it can reach a different and more diverse audience than a simple economic argument can.

6. Do you feel average Canadians understand what the concerns of British Columbians are?

It’s hard to say, although this issue has certainly gained a lot of national and international attention.  I think the message that this is about First Nations rights, wild salmon rivers and a pristine coastline has been received by most Canadians.

7. Do members of your community feel they have the power to stop the pipeline's construction if it is approved?

I think they feel empowered by the overwhelming opposition to this pipeline that the communities in the northwest have shown.  They also know that if the pipeline is approved there will likely be many legal challenges issued before any construction starts.

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.