It was good news all the way for B.C.’s provincial government with the July announcement of increased protection for some provincially owned patches of rare Coastal Douglas-fir forests.

For starters, who would object to an effort, however small, to protect an ecosystem under threat?

Well, pretty much no one — according to the provincial government’s news release.

“Over 1,078 submissions were received, with 98 per cent supportive of the proposal,” reads the release from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

But, at the Wilderness Committee — which for years has campaigned for increased Coastal Douglas-fir protection and which in 2014 unsuccessfully challenged the province in court for failing to adhere to its own laws in protecting the endangered ecosystem — the release sent up alarm signals.

“We immediately knew this was fudged because 162 people sent in submissions through our system, calling for all of the Coastal Douglas-fir on Crown land to be protected — which is supporting protection of the ecosystem, but not supporting the government’s proposal,” said Torrance Coste, Wilderness Committee Vancouver Island campaigner.

The government will protect an additional 980.5 hectares of the ecosystem on Vancouver Island, Galiano and Salt Spring islands, but the Wilderness Committee described the proposal as miniscule, increasing protection by only 0.43 per cent, and asked the province to protect all Coastal Douglas-fir ecosystems on non-private land, which would increase the ecosystem protection by nine per cent.

So, there is no way that letters from the Wilderness Committee members should have been included in the supportive category, Coste told The Narwhal.

“We feel this sets a really concerning precedent. If government is counting public submissions that say ‘your planned course of action is insufficient’ as support for its planned course of action, there is basically nothing it can’t claim public support for,” he said.

Coastal Douglas-fir forests historically grew throughout the South Coast, covering up to 2,555 square kilometres, but the trees were readily accessible for logging and often grew in development areas, meaning only a fraction now remain.

Of the 256,800 hectares remaining in B.C. only 23,500 hectares, or nine per cent, is provincially owned and, throughout the province, 11,000 hectares are protected, including the latest additions.

The Wilderness Committee wants all provincially owned Coastal Douglas-fir ecosystems to be protected and wants the government to take action to protect Douglas-fir forests on private land, especially in areas such as Texada and Lasqueti Islands.

That is particularly true for issues where there is support for government action, but not necessarily for the route envisaged by government, said Coste, who described the system of classifying answers as shady.

“This is especially concerning as the province is working to update its climate change plans. Most people that participate in public consultation on this will be supportive of taking action on climate change and, if government uses a similar public comment classification system, it could theoretically claim almost total public support for whatever it decides to do,” he said.

NDP government consultation heavy

The NDP government has made a point of holding frequent public consultations, with 17 public engagements currently underway, and Coste said, compared to the previous BC Liberal government, it makes a welcome change, but the process has to be done correctly and people have to know how their responses will be evaluated.

In response to a letter from the Wilderness Committee, Craig Sutherland, assistant deputy minister for the coast area, said all e-mails received during the public review process were reviewed by ministry technical staff familiar with the Coastal Douglas-fir ecosystem and the protection proposal.

The regional executive director, responsible for making a decision on the increased protection, received a detailed summary outlining concerns or comments brought up in the public review process along with a summary of comments that supported each point, he wrote.

“To further clarify how we arrived at 98 per cent support, comments were categorized at a coarse level and were identified as being supportive of the proposal or not supportive,” Sutherland wrote.

“Any comment which advocated for increased protection of the CDF was classified as being supportive, even if the comment recommended additional protection above what was being proposed.”

A ministry spokesperson said individual submissions are posted online for some consultations, meaning they can be assessed by anyone who is interested.

“(But,) it’s important to note that the Coastal Douglas-fir consultation wasn’t about a policy change, it was asking for feedback on the specific proposed geographic areas for protection under a revised land use order,” she said.

‘Bad public engagement is a great breeding ground for cynicism’

Rick Kool, environment and sustainability professor at Royal Roads University and founder of the master’s program in environmental education and communication, said that, if government is going to consult people, there should be an obligation to listen to what is being said, rather than going through a pro forma exercise.

“People become cynical when government talks about consulting and then doesn’t act on it…Government can teach cynicism very well and bad public engagement is a great breeding ground for cynicism,” Kool told The Narwhal.

Ideally, good consultation should leave people feeling they have been heard and that enough common ground has been found during the process that very few people feel they have lost, Kool said.

“If there is an obligation to consult, but no obligation to be explicit about what that consultation produced, it becomes a shallow exercise.”

Unfortunately, public engagement often becomes marked by the three I’s, which puts the power in the hands of government.

“Invite — those with power get to decide who to invite. Inform — those informed are told what is going to happen and invited to talk about it. Ignore — those in power can discount what they hear,” Kool said.

One way of ensuring that data from consultations is adequately assessed would be to give the responses to a university or college class to produce a spreadsheet — something that would be an excellent class project, Kool suggested.

“And, what better way to build public trust? If you put the data out, it’s pretty transparent.”

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.

Lawsuits designed to financially cripple small organizations or intimidate citizens into silence will no longer be allowed under the provincial government’s new anti-SLAPP legislation, welcomed as a step forward for free speech in B.C.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are usually launched by powerful corporations or organizations to threaten and silence critics and discourage others from speaking out. Under the new legislation, which will be debated next fall, the courts can be asked to dismiss lawsuits that are designed to prevent the defendant from speaking freely on a matter of public interest.

Currently, the onus is on the person being sued to show that the organization suing them intends to silence legitimate criticism.

Attorney General David Eby, who presented the Protection of Public Participation Act in the Legislature Tuesday, said British Columbians deserve the freedom to peacefully engage in public debate without fear of unreasonable and financially ruinous legal action.

“Lawsuits that serve to silence and financially exhaust those exercising their right of expression exploit our legal system and only serve those with significantly deeper pockets,” Eby said.

Josh Paterson, executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, one of the organizations that has been appealing to the NDP government for legislation, said SLAPPs have become common in B.C.

“Many British Columbians and organizations in this province have been harassed, intimidated and litigated into silence by stronger parties with spurious — and in some cases outrageous — legal threats,” Paterson said.

The legislation, which is based on similar rules in Ontario, will allow SLAPP suits to be identified quickly, avoiding long and expensive trials, he said.

Even cases which are ultimately thrown out of court, or which never get to court, can be financially ruinous, pointed out Joe Foy, national campaigner for the Wilderness Committee. That organization was dragged through the courts by Taseko Mines Ltd. for five years.

The company launched the defamation case after the Wilderness Committee suggested on its website that opponents of Taseko’s proposed New Prosperity Mine, near Williams Lake, should comment on the federal government’s environmental review process.

“Those with financial means should not be able to use their means to limit the voices of others. You cannot put a price on free speech.”

The case was finally tossed out of court, with the B.C. Court of Appeal and the B.C. Supreme Court agreeing that the lawsuit was launched to silence critics on a matter of public importance, but there were still financial ramifications, Foy said.

The cost of insurance for directors and officers of the group soared from $2,000 to $7,500 a year — even though the Wilderness Committee was completely innocent — and staff time, spent collecting information and evidence, racked up a major bill, Foy said.

“All we were doing was encouraging our supporters to comment and, suddenly, you are stuck in a room with an 800 pound gorilla called Taseko who wants your blood,” said Foy, adding that, initially, neither level of government would lift a finger to help.

“That’s why we really appreciate what the provincial government is doing,” he said.

The situation is even more intimidating for individuals who speak out against something such as a neighbourhood development and are immediately slapped with papers for saying what they think, Foy said.

That was the case in Shawnigan Lake, when residents who spoke out against a contaminated landfill site, operated by South Island Resource Management Ltd., received legal letters.

Cowichan Valley Green MLA Sonia Furstenau, then a Cowichan Valley Regional District director, led the opposition to the contaminated soil site and, on Tuesday, she welcomed the government’s anti-SLAPP legislation.

“A vibrant public sphere is one of the fundamental components of a healthy democracy and no one should be afraid to voice their opinion on the issues that matter to them,” Furstenau said in an emailed response to a question from The Narwhal.

“Those with financial means should not be able to use their means to limit the voices of others. You cannot put a price on free speech.”

West Coast Environmental Law staff lawyer Erica Stahl said the legislation will go a long way towards strengthening democracy in B.C.

“If a corporation drags you to court for speaking out, you may spend years fighting the case — distracting you from the real public issues that need to be discussed and resulting in immense financial and emotional costs,” Stahl said.

B.C. previously had a brief experience with anti-SLAPP legislation.

In 2001 the former NDP government introduced Canada’s first such legislation, but it was repealed five months later by the newly elected BC Liberal government, which argued it would lead to a protest culture.

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 Wilderness Committee has won a landmark defamation case brought against it by Taseko Mines Ltd. but, despite the win, the non-profit environmental group will suffer financially after fighting the company in court for five years.

The case is being held up as a textbook example of why anti-SLAPP legislation is needed in B.C.

“We are very proud to have stood our ground, but B.C. very much needs anti-SLAPP legislation. We were completely innocent and yet this company was able to keep us in the courts for five years — and their pockets are much deeper than ours,” said Wilderness Committee national campaigner Joe Foy.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) cases are usually launched by companies trying to silence their critics. B.C. briefly had Canada’s first anti-SLAPP law which was brought in by the former NDP government, but repealed by the BC Liberals who feared it would lead to a “protest culture” shortly after their election in 2001.

Ontario and Quebec are currently the only provinces with such legislation.

ICYMI: Laws Needed to Protect Citizens from Industry, Government SLAPP Suits: B.C. Civil Liberties Association

Now Foy says it’s time to bring back a law to stop deep-pocketed companies like Taseko Mines from dragging Canadians through the courts because the company doesn’t like what is being said about their project.

“The company didn’t like what we said about their risky, environmentally destructive open-pit mine proposal — so they took us to court,” he said.

“Some industrial projects should be stopped and people need to be able to say that without fear of getting sued.”

The B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the B.C. Supreme Court decision that the company’s lawsuit — which was seeking actual and punitive damages — was launched “to silence critics on a matter of public importance.”

“We are very proud to have stood our ground, but B.C. very much needs anti-SLAPP legislation. We were completely innocent and yet this company was able to keep us in the courts for five years — and their pockets are much deeper than ours.” https://t.co/AqDhiuHNBE

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 17, 2017

However, the lower court award of special costs to the Wilderness Committee, ordered because the judge agreed the company had unduly dragged out the court case, were struck down by the appeal judges.

The Wilderness Committee has insurance that will help cover many of the costs, but the group will still be in the hole for about $20,000, plus staff time and effort, and the increased cost of insurance will be an ongoing expense, said Foy, who added that the cost would have been huge without insurance.

The threat of such suits inevitably has a chilling effect when people want to speak out against a project, said Foy.

“It could be someone speaking at a public meeting and the next thing, you have papers served and, before you know it, you have ferocious lawyers breathing down your neck,” he said.

The provincial government has not made any commitment to bring in anti-SLAPP legislation since coming to power, but a spokesman for the Ministry of the Attorney General said anti-SLAPP legislation is under consideration.

“Government is looking at SLAPP lawsuits and exploring legislative options that are fair for the people of British Columbia,” he said.

Other groups pushing for the legislation include B.C. Civil Liberties Association, Union of B.C. Municipalities and Ecojustice.

The Taseko saga started in 2012 when the company claimed the Wilderness Committee had defamed the company in comments on the Wilderness Committee website about Taseko’s proposed New Prosperity open-pit copper and gold mine near Williams Lake, in Tsilhqot’in Nation territory.

The controversial project, bitterly opposed by the Tsilhqot’in Nation, was approved by the B.C. Environmental Assessment Agency, but twice rejected by the federal government.

The initial plan involved draining Fish Lake — considered sacred by the Tsilhqot’in — to store toxic tailings. The second incarnation, after the proposal was rejected by the federal government, came up with an alternate plan for tailings, but the federal Environment Ministry determined that the seepage would be toxic to fish in nearby waterways.

In addition to the Wilderness Committee decision, this month, Taseko Mines has lost two judicial review applications made to the Federal Court of Canada. Both were asking for reviews of federal decisions, claiming a lack of procedural fairness.

The court dismissed both applications and ordered Taseko to pay the court costs of the Tsilhqot’in Nation and the federal government.

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.

Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain may be in violation of a condition laid out by the National Energy Board, Canada’s federal pipeline regulator, after ordering nearly 300,000 tonnes of pipeline for the expansion project without submitting a quality management plan.

According to regulatory documents filed by the National Energy Board in September, Trans Mountain was required to file a quality management plan “at least four months prior to manufacturing any pipe and major components for the project.”

The quality management plan requires Trans Mountain to supply documentation regarding the qualifications of pipeline contractors, vendors and suppliers, quality auditing of manufactured pipe and the preservation of pipe during shipping and storage.

Yet in documents submitted to the NEB, Trans Mountain confirmed pipeline manufacturing contracts were awarded between May and July of 2017 and manufacturing of the pipeline began in October with no plan in place.

In 2012, TransCanada came under fire for failing to comply with NEB rules regarding pipeline inspections. Since 1999 the NEB has required companies to provide independent inspections of contracted pipeline manufacturers. Whistleblower Evan Vokes raised the alarm about faulty pipeline welding practices, bringing his complaint to the NEB after TransCanada refused to acknowledge his concerns.

Peter McCartney, campaigner with the Wilderness Committee, said the company’s actions are evidence of a disregard for Canada’s regulatory process.

“They think the rules don’t apply to them and yet there are 157 conditions the federal government placed on this project’s approval,” McCartney told DeSmog Canada.

The NEB has indicated it will review Trans Mountain’s potential non-compliance in an “upcoming compliance verification activity.”

In early February 2017 Trans Mountain submitted a filing to the NEB that included “incomplete process documentation” on 13 specific aspects of Condition 9, which applies to the quality management plan.

#KinderMorgan At Risk of Violating NEB Condition With Premature 300,000-Tonne Pipeline Order https://t.co/evYw3E3eaW #transmountain #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 3, 2017

Trans Mountain notified the NEB it would submit completed documentation to the NEB by August 15, 2017, but by September none of the requested document has been submitted.

In a response to the NEB, Trans Mountain confirmed it had procured pipe, fitting and other major components for the pipeline, prior to the completion of its quality management plan.

A spokesperson with the NEB told DeSmog Canada that an assessment of Trans Mountain’s “condition related filings is ongoing.”

“Throughout construction oversight, the NEB undertakes assessment of company documentation to ensure pipe and components meet regulations and standards,” the spokesperson said. “The company is accountable for meeting these regulations and standards.”

Trans Mountain did not respond to a written request for comment.

McCartney said these revelations add to growing concerns Trans Mountain is not interested in following rules laid out by the federal government.

Last month the NEB ordered Trans Mountain to remove unapproved anti-spawning mats a company biologist placed in B.C. and Alberta rivers along the proposed pipeline route. In an October 12 letter, the NEB told Trans Mountain the use of such installations “prior to approval of relevant conditions for commencement of construction and approval” of the pipeline was non-compliant.

Trans Mountain recently appealed to the NEB to help keep the project on schedule by expediting ongoing reviews of project conditions. The request came as the city of Burnaby, which vocally opposes the project, refused to issue construction permits to the company.

According to previous NEB filings, Trans Mountain plans to stockpile pipeline in New Westminster, Chilliwack, Hope, Merritt, Kamloops, Vavenby and Valemount.

Those piles could begin appearing as early as this month.

Kinder Morgan released an IPO in May, seeking $1.75 billion from investors. In a prospectus filed with security regulators the company warned delays in construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline posed a significant risk to the project.

“Should any number of risks arise, [Trans Mountain] may be inhibited, delayed or stopped altogether,” the document warned.

NEB Letter to Trans Mountain re Condition 9 September 2017 by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Trans Mountain Response to NEB Letter – Condition 9 September 2017 by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Image: Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline sign in Burnaby. Photo: Carol Linnitt | DeSmog Canada

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

The gas industry has donated more than $1 million to the BC Liberals since the last provincial election, according to a new analysis done by the Wilderness Committee.

The companies and industry groups are involved in extracting B.C.’s gas (via fracking) and building gas pipeline and liquefied natural gas (LNG) operations.

“This industry receives billions of dollars in provincial tax breaks and subsidies from the very government they’re paying to elect,” Peter McCartney, climate campaigner at the Wilderness Committee, said in a press release.

Gas industry donations since 2013 total $1,007,456.

Totals were tallied from the Elections BC contributions database and the BC Liberal disclosure site.

The largest donor is Encana, a natural gas company with extensive fracking operations in B.C.’s northeast, which gave $338,041 to the BC Liberal party in the past four years.

Chevron, which owns a 50 per cent stake in the Kitimat LNG project and the affiliated Pacific Trails gas pipeline, donated $114,540. Woodfibre LNG, which recently received federal approval to export LNG from a facility in Squamish, B.C., donated $63,500.

Other industry donors include the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., FortisBC, TransCanada, Pacific Northwest LNG, AltaGas, Steelhead LNG and Imperial.

A Globe and Mail investigation published on the weekend revealed that lobbyists are illegally funneling money to the party on behalf of corporate and special interests. This practice conceals the true source of the money from the public and is now under investigation by Elections BC.

What is illegal in other provinces is considered standard political donation practice in BC https://t.co/WmKKMtotZO #BCLNG #bcpoli #bcelxn17 pic.twitter.com/ZlkyD3d4YX

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) March 8, 2017

Corporations Can Donate Unlimited Amounts in B.C.

B.C., recently called the “wild west” of political donations by the New York Times, has long been criticized for its lax rules, which allow unlimited donations from corporations, unions, the wealthy elite and foreign interests.

Most other provinces and the federal government have caps on how much donors can give. The federal government limits individual donations to $1,525 and has an outright ban on donations by corporations, unions and foreigners.

The province of Quebec limits political donations to individuals and has a strict cap of $100.

Due to the fact B.C. has virtually no rules, the BC Liberal party is flush with corporate and foreign cash. Last year alone the party raised $12 million, more money than any other provincial party in power and two-thirds of what the federal Liberals collected from supporters across the country, according to the Globe article.

A recent New York Times feature said B.C. “stands out for the unabashedly cozy relationship between private interests and government officials in the province.”

The piece noted what is considered standard political donation practice in B.C. is illegal in other provinces.

“When anyone anywhere in the world can donate as much as they want to the system, you have an even bigger threat to the system,” Dermod Travis, executive director for IntegrityBC, told the New York Times.

“What it says to people is money talks and votes don’t.”

Travis, who has spent years documenting political donations and government contracts in B.C. recently wrote the B.C. government has turned the practice of returning favours to political donors into a refined art form.

Since 2013, Chevron’s Pacific Trails gas pipeline, TransCanada’s Coastal GasLink pipeline, TransCanada’s Prince Rupert Gas Transmission line, Woodfibre LNG’s export terminal, Pacific Northwest LNG’s export terminal and LNG Canada’s export terminal have received full or partial permitting.

In the lead up to the last provincial election, the BC Liberals campaigned on a LNG promise that pledged $1 trillion in economic activity, 100,000 high-paying jobs and the creation of a $100 billion B.C. Prosperity Fund.

The promise to have at least three LNG facilities online by 2020 was central to the party’s BC Jobs Plan and debt-reduction plan. Although both Pacific Northwest LNG and Woodfibre LNG have received permits, final and full investment decisions are still pending.

The companies behind the donations were poised to help the government deliver on the BC Liberal’s LNG promises. But those promises are looking harder and harder for the government to keep.

Image: Christy Clark announcing investment in the Woodfibre LNG terminal. Photo: Province of B.C. via Flickr cc

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 broad coalition of organizations from across Canada wants Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to halt construction of the Site C dam by refusing to issue federal permits needed for construction of the $9-billion project that will flood 23,000 hectares of land along 107-kilometres of the Peace River Valley.   A letter to Trudeau, signed by 25 organizations ranging from Amnesty International and the Council of Canadians to the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the David Suzuki Foundation, asks that the new Liberal government live up to its promises of a new relationship with First Nations.   “Our organizations are profoundly concerned that construction of the Site C dam is being pushed ahead despite the conclusion of a joint federal-provincial environmental assessment that it would severely and permanently undermine indigenous peoples’ use of the land; harm rare plants and other biodiversity; make fishing unsafe for at least a generation and submerge burial grounds and other crucial cultural and historical sites,” an open letter released by the coalition says.   The letter urges Trudeau to rescind all permits and to re-examine the previous government’s approval of the dam, which was given despite Treaty 8 claims that it violated treaty rights.   “The people of Treaty 8 have said no to Site C. Any government that is truly committed to reconciliation with indigenous peoples, to respecting human rights and to promoting truly clean energy must listen,” the letter says.

The provincial government is largely responsible for Site C permits, but the federal government must issue permits in areas of federal jurisdiction such as fisheries, transport and wildlife. 

BC Hydro did not respond to questions about outstanding permits in time for publication.   During recent climate change negotiations in Paris, most Canadians were delighted that Trudeau linked climate change with human rights, Joe Foy, from the Wilderness Committee, said.   “The Peace River is where the rubber meets the road. This is clearly against what this government and this country stands for,” Foy said.   “The federal government needs to go on record now that, at every step of the way, they will resist this.”   Candace Batycki, spokesperson for the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, one of the organizations that signed the letter, said Site C is not just another resource development project.   “The Site C dam is one of the largest resource development projects underway in Canada and its impact on the environment and local First Nations will be severe,” she said.   First Nations from the Peace River area have already asked the federal government to step into the controversy and AFN National Chief Perry Bellegarde is among those who have called for a second look at the project.   Chief Roland Willson of West Moberly First Nations said there has not yet been an opportunity to meet with members of the Trudeau cabinet, but letters have gone to all ministers.   “I have to believe in my heart they are seriously considering it. They have to understand the process was severely flawed,” he said.   “They can’t talk about a new enhanced relationship and start stabbing their fingers in our eyes…There’s no doubt it’s an infringement of treaty rights,” he said.   Trudeau should understand that there are ways to produce the power, such as run-of-river hydro projects, that do not destroy the valley, Willson said.   So far, an old-growth forest has been destroyed and there are minor earthworks, “but there is nothing irreversible,” he said.   Site C still faces three legal challenges and BC Hydro has applied for an injunction against First Nations members camping at historic Rocky Mountain Fort.   BC Hydro claims the protesters have been preventing contractors from completing their work on the south bank of the Peace River since January 4 and the petition will be heard in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver on February 22.   “We will still be at the camp, whatever courses are followed. This is Treaty 8 territory,” said Helen Knott of Prophet River First Nation, who is among the Treaty 8 Stewards of the Land women who have been taking shifts camping at the fort.   The group has asked Trudeau and Premier Christy Clark to suspend all approvals for logging, road building and land clearing in the Peace River Valley until all the court cases have been heard, there has been a federal review of the infringement of treaty rights and an independent review of the project by the B.C. Utilities Commission.   Knott said she is willing to be arrested, but hopes it will not be necessary as she is heading to Toronto and Ottawa next week to meet with federal government representatives.   No meetings have yet been organized, she said.   “But we want to make every effort to do this the right way. I do have some sort of hope that something magical will happen,” she said.

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

Image: Sign on the banks of the Peace River via the ECOReport.

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.

High in the trees that have been growing in the Walbran Valley on Vancouver Island for up to 1,000 years, unique colonies of insects and invertebrates are thriving.

Carpets of soil which develop in the massive branches of the old-growth trees contain a plethora of species not found anywhere else on Earth and, since 1995, University of Victoria entomologist Neville Winchester has climbed more than 2,000 trees to document and catalogue this life in the tree-tops.

“These ancient forests are a repository of biodiversity,” said Winchester, who has had more than a dozen beetle mites, aphids and flies named after him and who is giving a public talk this Friday at 6:30 p.m. at the University of Victoria.

Together with UVic graduate students, Winchester has conducted one of the most extensive canopy research projects in North America, using ropes to scale trees the equivalent of 18-storeys high in the Carmanah and Walbran valleys.

 “Then I take my mom’s bulb planter and take a sample of the suspended soils, which can be up to 60 centimetres in depth,” he said.

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence of unique ecosystems, Winchester is fighting a battle he thought had been won two decades ago when massive protests and demonstrations — part of the ‘War in the Woods’ that marked the 1980s and 1990s in B.C. — erupted over plans to log Carmanah Walbran.

At that time, Winchester was already doing canopy research and, when the government of the day responded to overwhelming public opposition and created the Carmanah Walbran Provincial Park, taking in 16,450 hectares of the old growth forest, he believed the war was over.

But now, part of the Central Walbran, just outside the park boundary, is under threat.

“I have the feeling that ‘here we go again.’ The same issues that were present then have surfaced again. They have been simmering for 20 years,” said Winchester, who finds it difficult to believe that politicians cannot look at the evidence and ban old-growth logging in the area.

“It’s greed, ignorance and arrogance. The scientific evidence is out there and it shows that these areas and these species are essential to protect biodiversity,” he said.

“By taking these trees down or by causing disruption you are committing species to go extinct. . . . Who would feel good about species going extinct just because we have mismanaged a resource? That’s the bottom line.”

Ancient Forest Alliance (AFA) Photographer & Campaigner TJ Watt standing beside the Castle Giant in the unprotected Castle Grove.

The province has granted Surrey-based Teal Jones Group a permit for a 3.2-hectare cutblock east of Carmanah Walbran Park.

The cutblock is in the 500-hectare Central Walbran where, unlike the valley further south which is tattered with cutblocks, there is contiguous old-growth.

“It’s where our forests reach their most magnificent proportions,” said Ken Wu of the Ancient Forest Alliance.

“These are the classic giants. The biggest and the best — and some of the largest remaining tracts and finest old growth western red cedars are in areas such as Castle Grove, together with old-growth dependent species such as the Queen Charlotte goshawk and marbled murrelet,” Wu said, emphasizing the importance of these areas for tourism as well as biodiversity.

Jackie Korn stands beside a large redcedar stump cut by Teal-Jones in the Walbran Valley in 2014. Photo: TJ Watt.

Business leaders in Port Renfrew have called on the B.C. government to immediately ban logging in the unprotected part of the Walbran Valley, saying tall tree tourism is now a multi-million dollar business and the highest value would come from stopping further logging of old growth trees.

At the heart of the problem is the original configuration of the park, said Torrance Coste of the Wilderness Committee.

A large chunk, surrounded by park and known colloquially as “The Bite,” was left without protection.

“It was a big concession to logging interests. When the park was laid down, there was no consensus or agreement from the environmental side,” Coste said.

Logging has already degraded old-growth on the south side of Walbran Creek, and environmentalists are not happy about Teal Jones plans for seven more cutblocks in that area, but the line in the sand is the approved cutblock on the north side of the river, said Coste, who wants to see the 486-hectare northern section of The Bite protected.

Protests started in the area in November, but, three weeks later, a court injunction restricted access and stopped protesters from interfering with logging operations.

On January 4, in a B.C. Supreme Court ruling, the injunction was extended until the end of March.

Coste said that, although he and the Wilderness Committee are named in the injunction, the role of the group has been to record and advocate, not participate in blockades.

However, he believes the injunction is heavy-handed and designed to discourage people from going into the Walbran Valley.

There is a great need for eyes on the ground and for British Columbians to let the province know that it is not acceptable to log some of the last low-elevation old-growth on southern Vancouver Island, he said.

The Milky Way cradled by silhouettes of ancient redcedars in the Central Walbran Valley. Photo by TJ Watt.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations said in an e-mail that the ministry facilitated a meeting between the company and environmental groups in December to discuss how concerns could be addressed and another meeting is scheduled for next month.

The 3.2-hectare area that Teal Jones plans to log is part of a special resource management zone, which limits cutblock size to five hectares, and the company will use helicopter harvesting, meaning there will be no trails, roads or use of heavy equipment, the province said.

Conserving old growth and biodiversity are important parts of the province’s long-term resource management plans, said the spokesman.

“Of the 1.9 million hectares of Crown forest on Vancouver Island, 840,125 hectares are considered old growth, but only 313,000 hectares are available for timber harvesting,” the e-mail reponse read.

Coste remains hopeful that the province will have a change of heart.

“Nowhere else on Vancouver Island do we have the opportunity to protect such a large tract of contiguous old-growth,” he said.

“It’s an opportunity we absolutely can’t afford to miss.”

Winchester is hoping science will convince the government of the need for protection and he will publicly share findings from his years of research at a lecture Friday Jan.29, 6.30 p.m. at the University of Victoria Student Union Building Upper Lounge.

Admission is by donation with proceeds going to the Friends of Carmanah/Walbran campaign to protect the Central Walbran Ancient Forest.

Main Image: Looking up an ancient redcedar tree in proposed logging cutblock 4405. Central Walbran Ancient Forest. TJ Watt.

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 next round of the National Energy Board’s (NEB) hearings for the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline are scheduled to begin January 19 in Vancouver, B.C.

Climate advocates and critics of the National Energy Board are disappointed the review process will continue on under rules established by the previous federal government, especially since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau campaigned on a promise to make the process more credible and evidence-based.

The Liberal party platform promised to immediately review the process, restoring “robust oversight and thorough environmental assessments” as well as restoring “lost protections” eliminated during the former government’s sweeping changes to environmental law. 

At a campaign stop in August 2015, Trudeau told Kai Nagata, energy and democracy director at the Dogwood Initiative, that the NEB overhaul would apply to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline.

“Yes. Yes,” Trudeau said. “It applies to existing projects, existing pipelines as well.”

“Okay,” Nagata said. “So if they approve Kinder Morgan in January, you’re saying…”

“No, they’re not going to approve it in January. Because we’re going to change the government,” Trudeau responded. “And that process needs to be redone.”

Trudeau on Kinder Morgan

Justin Trudeau says if he's Prime Minister, Kinder Morgan will have to go back to the drawing board, saying "the process needs to be redone." Find out where candidates in your riding stand: http://votebc.ca/

Posted by Dogwood Initiative on Friday, August 21, 2015

However in November, Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr announced ongoing pipeline reviews will continue on while the federal government considers new rules.

“There will be a transition as we amend the ways in which the National Energy Board goes about the process of evaluating these projects,” Minister Carr said in November, “and we will announce those changes as soon as we can, but the process continues.”

Nagata said Trudeau’s promise is not being upheld.

“Clearly something has happened between the dying days of the election and today to give the government pause with regard to its promise to revamp the Kinder Morgan process,” he said.

“What’s difficult to stomach is everyone, including the Liberals, agrees there is a problem with the process.”

Nagata said this week’s decision by the B.C. Supreme Court that the province failed to uphold its duty to consult First Nations regarding the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline only adds to the feeling of frustration.

“The circumstances are exactly the same for Trans Mountain,” he said. “In this context we have these hearings going on that everyone agrees is a sham, but the First Nations, municipalities, and intervenors are expected to continue on, basically doffing their cap to the panel as they present their final evidence.”

“It’s humiliating for the province, for First Nations, intervenors and the taxpayers who supported the scientific work done in this review,” he said.

Clayton Thomas Muller, climate campaigner with 350.org, said the Trans Mountain hearings should not go ahead.

“By letting these reviews proceed the Prime Minister is breaking the promise he made on the campaign trail to stop reviewing pipelines using Stephen Harper’s rules,” he said.

“This government can’t meet its commitments on climate or Indigenous rights and push forward with pipeline reviews that ignore climate change, community voices and the duty to consult with Indigenous peoples,” Thomas Muller, Stop it at the Source Campaigner with 350.org, said.

Thomas Muller spent the morning in the office of Minister Jim Carr as part of a People’s Injunction action organized by 350.org. Campaigners said they were performing a “people’s search and seizure” for new pipeline review rules.

“If they don’t have a new process here today, they should cancel these projects before the Kinder Morgan hearings start on Monday,” Thomas Muller said.

“Without considering climate change or listening to community voices, especially First Nations, these reviews are still little more than a rubber stamp for unnecessary, dangerous fossil fuel projects.”

The climate advocacy organization is planning actions across Canada as part of the People’s Injunction to ask for a cancellation or suspension of pipeline reviews until new rules are put in place. 

Peter McCartney, climate campaigner with the Wilderness Committee said the organization is “very disappointed” the review will continue on under the current regime.

“There was a promise made to restore credibility to these hearings,” he said. “If these hearings aren't good enough for future projects, they're not good enough now.”

The Wilderness Committee publicly withdrew as an intervenor from the Trans Mountain review in August, criticising the process as unfair and biased with a predetermined outcome. The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society as well as 33 other individuals also abandoned their position as intervenors in the process in August, following other high-profile withdrawals from for CEO of ICBC, Robyn Allan, and former CEO of BC Hydro, Marc Elisen.

“Canadians deserve an environmental review process they can trust, that takes into account climate impacts and properly consults with First Nations,” McCartney said.

“It looks like we made the right decision in pulling out of the hearings and taking our message straight to the Prime Minister.”

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

Image: Twitter

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.

Three Manitoba-based environmental groups — Manitoba Wildlands, Wilderness Committee, and Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition — held a press conference Thursday in Winnipeg demanding the Manitoba government “acknowledge the magnitude” of TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline project, which would see oilsands (also called tar sands) bitumen shipped through the province. 

“Does the Manitoba government have an agreement with TransCanada Energy East already? Or does Manitoba Hydro already have an agreement to provide this energy? Will the Manitoba government follow the lead of other provinces and review the climate impacts? There are so many unanswered questions,” Gaile Whelan-Enns, director of Manitoba Wildlands, said.

While Ontario and Quebec are conducting public consultations on the propsed west-to-east oil pipeline and have expressed some uneasiness with the project, Manitoba premier Greg Selinger has been accused of saying very little about Energy East.

“Manitobans deserve to know where their government stands on this issue," Whelan-Enns said.

Manitoba May Have to Finance Energy East Infrastructure

The groups also released their analysis of the 30,000-page Energy East project application. They found nine new pipeline pumping stations are needed in Manitoba for the pipeline's operations and Manitoba Hydro, the province’s public utility, would then be expected to provide the electricity and transmission lines to power the stations. 

“People in this province need to hear about the tremendous investment this proposed pipeline needs from us in Manitoba,” Eric Reder, Manitoba campaign director for the Wilderness Committee, said.

“In Manitoba, we have a Clean Energy Strategy that is based on creating a future without fossil fuels,” Alex Paterson of the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition said.

“It’s time to have a real, democratic conversation about the role our public utility wants to play in expanding fossil fuel infrastructure in Canada.”

Ninety-six per cent of Manitoba’s electricity comes from renewable hydroelectricity.

Energy East Opposition Ranks Highest in Manitoba

Manitobans ranked the highest among Canadians opposed to Energy East in a recent nation-wide opinion poll conducted for the Climate Action Network Canada.  Seventy-eight per cent of Manitobans said they believe tackling climate change and protecting the environment is more important than building pipelines and expanding oilsands production.  

The Green Party of Manitoba last month called on the provincial government to reject the Energy East project.

“If it goes ahead, the Energy East Pipeline will threaten the health and safety of thousands of Manitobans who live in 25 communities along the proposed route,” provincial Green Party leader James Beddome said.

“As well, by providing an outlet for Alberta oilsands crude, Energy East will magnify the impact of the oil sands on global climate change.”

The 4,600-kilmetre TransCanada Energy East pipeline if approved would begin in Alberta and head east to New Brunswick, crossing through Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. The pipeline would be North America’s largest oil pipeline. 

Image Credit: Travel Manitoba

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.

This is a guest post by Torrance Coste, Vancouver Island campaigner with the Wilderness Committee, an organization working with local groups and individuals to stop the Raven Coal Mine.

Monday, March 2nd was a tense day for those of us monitoring the Raven Coal Mine proposal. After a 30-day screening period, the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) was set to announce whether or not the application to mine close to 30 million tonnes of coal and rock in the Comox Valley would advance to final environmental review.

Then, just hours before the announcement, proponent Compliance Energy abruptly withdrew its application.

Frankly, this took us by surprise. The company’s first proposal was rejected by the EAO in May 2013 because it was missing hundreds of pages of required information. When Compliance made its resubmission earlier this year, the company stated it was confident that all previous shortcomings had been addressed and the application was complete.

But as we’ve seen with other controversial, ecosystem-threatening proposals — from the Northern Gateway pipeline to the New Prosperity Mine in Tsilhqot’in Territory — projects don’t move ahead if they don’t have social licence.

And on that front, Compliance Energy isn’t even close.

From day one, Raven has seen a groundswell of opposition on Vancouver Island, perhaps most fiercely in Fanny Bay, the shellfish-producing community located less than five kilometres downhill from the mine site.

John Snyder — president of CoalWatch Comox Valley, the scrappy grassroots society that has done tremendous work raising the alarm and unifying opposition to Raven — lives in Fanny Bay. For residents there, it’s all about water. Unless Compliance can guarantee that the mine won’t impact local water, John says there’s no way it can proceed. He and many others agree that this guarantee is impossible, so the mine is a non-starter for them.

And Fanny Bay is just the tip of the iceberg. No Coal Mine signs dot lawns, windows and telephone poles all across the Comox Valley. All four municipal governments in the area have passed motions opposing the proposal, and the K’ómoks First Nation has expressed concern about the mine’s impact on its treaty negotiations and shellfish interests.

From the mine, coal would be transported in some of the biggest trucks the Island has ever seen, over highways 19 and 4 to the Alberni Valley. Many in Port Alberni, including the Mayor, have questioned whether the minimal benefits of the port justify this sacrifice.

In its letter to the EAO, Compliance said it was withdrawing its application due to concerns about public “misinformation.” To date, only EAO staff and members of the project working groups have seen the revised proposal. If the application was thorough and complete like Compliance has promised, why not move ahead with the review and get the information out in the open?

Calling the public misinformed and then terminating one of the processes that would provide them with information is like claiming you’ve made an award-winning wine and dumping it all on the ground before anyone can taste it.

Environmental threats aside, the Wilderness Committee opposes Raven because it is the sort of utterly unsustainable development we need to be shifting away from on Vancouver Island. We need economic activity and employment opportunities, but all jobs aren’t created equal. We should prioritize activities that can continue on an indefinite or at least a long-term basis. We’ll strengthen our communities by building careers, not offering a couple years of work to a lucky few.

I know shellfish growers in Fanny Bay whose families have been in this industry for three or four generations. There are other sectors, like agriculture, tourism, manufacturing and even forestry, that can provide income and stability on a potentially infinite basis (if they’re given a chance and properly managed).

Coal mining is simply not one of these industries. Mines rarely last the span of even a single career — Compliance’s president has switched continents three times during his own. The Raven mine would operate for a maximum of sixteen years, after which any economic benefit would disappear forever.

The Raven mine has been a dark cloud over the Island since 2009. Passionate citizens have spent thousands of hours meeting, organizing and working to protect their home. It’s hard to say how many hours (and taxpayer dollars) have been spent dealing with the proposal at the EAO.

We’ll be waiting should Compliance re-submit its proposal yet again, as it has vowed it will. However, the project has never been less popular, and this latest withdrawal only strengthens our view that the proponent isn’t committed to the Island’s communities or our shared environment.

Compliance Energy doesn’t have public trust, and frankly, it doesn’t deserve it.

Twitter @TorranceCoste

Image Credit: B.C. Shellfish Growers Association

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.