National Energy Board is a casualty of Canada’s new legislation for environmental assessment

On February 8, following 14 months of consultation and review, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change introduced the mammoth Bill C-69 An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts  . The government press release from Environment and Climate Change Canada highlights these talking points about the proposed legislation-  It will:  Restore public trust through increased public participation; Included transparent, science-based decisions; Achieve more comprehensive impact assessments by expanding the types of impacts studied to include health, social and economic impacts, as well as impacts on Indigenous Peoples, over the long-term. Also, it promises  “One project, one review” – through a new Impact Assessment Agency, (replacing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency) which will be the lead agency, working with a new Canadian Energy Regulator (replacing the National Energy Board), as well as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Offshore Boards.  Further, it will make decisions timely; Revise the project list; Protect water, fish and navigation ; and Increase funding.  The detailed government  explanation of the changes  is here ; other summaries appeared in the National Observer in “ McKenna unveils massive plan to overhaul Harper environmental regime”  ; “Ottawa to scrap National Energy Board, overhaul environmental assessment process for major projects”   in CBC News; and in the reaction by The Council of Canadians, which expresses reservations about the protection of navigable waters, and these “Quick Observations”:
“1- the current industry-friendly Calgary-based National Energy Board would be replaced by a proposed Calgary-based (and likely industry-friendly) Canadian Energy Regulator
2- it includes the ‘one project, one review’ principle as demanded by industry
3- assessments of major projects must be completed within two years, a ‘predictable timeline’ also demanded by industry
4- the bill notes the ‘traditional knowledge of the Indigenous Peoples of Canada’ but does not include the words ‘free, prior and informed consent’, a key principle of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
5- McKenna said that no current projects (including the Kinder Morgan pipeline which crosses more than 1,300 water courses) would be sent back to ‘the starting line’
6- the government is seeking to implement the law by mid-2019.”

An overview of other reaction appears in   “New Federal Environmental Assessment Law Earns Praise from Climate Hawks, Cautious Acceptance from Fossils” from the Energy Mix.  Reaction from West Coast Environmental Law (WCEL) is here ; and from  Environmental Defence here .  The Canadian Environmental Law Association sees some forward progress but warns that “the Impact Assessment Act is marred by a number of serious flaws that must be fixed in the coming months.”    Reaction from the Pembina Institute says “Today’s legislation improves the federal assessment process by centralizing authority for impact assessment under a single agency; providing a broader set of criteria for assessing projects including impacts to social and health outcomes; and removing the limitations on public participation that were put in place in 2012…. Building on today’s legislation, we would like to see progress towards the establishment of an independent Canadian Energy Information Agency to ensure that project reviews include Paris Agreement-compliant supply and demand scenarios for coal, oil and gas.”

Companion legislation, also the product of the lengthy Environmental Regulation Review, was introduced on February 6, Bill C-68 An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence  (Press release is here ; there is also a Backgrounder comparing the old and new legislation). Most importantly, Bill C-68 restores a stronger protection of fish and fish habitat – the HADD provision – to the definition used before the 2012 amendments by the Harper government. (HADD = the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat).  Reaction is generally very favourable:   The David Suzuki Foundation says : “The most important changes we were looking for are part of these amendments” and West Coast Environmental Law says that the proposed legislation   “meets the mark”.  Reaction is also favourable from the Ecology Action Centre in Halifax . And from the Alberta Environmental Law Centre, some background in “Back to what we once HADD: Fisheries Act Amendments are Introduced” .

no consentAnd finally, where does the new environmental assessment process leave Canada’s Indigenous people?  The new legislation includes the creation of an Indigenous Advisory Committee and requires that an expert on Indigenous rights be included on the board of  the new Canadian Energy Regulator body, according to a CBC report, “Indigenous rights question remains in Ottawa’s planned environmental assessment overhaul” . Minister McKenna is also quoted as saying the government will “try really hard” to conform to the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples   – a statement that is not satisfactory to some Indigenous leaders.    See “Indigenous consultation and environmental assessments” (Feb. 7)  in Policy Options for a discussion of the issue of “free, prior and informed consent”.  On February 7, Private member’s Bill C-262, an Act to Harmonize Canada’s Laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples passed 2nd reading in the House of Commons.

Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline ignites a trade war between Alberta and British Columbia

trudeau-notley-20161129Pipeline politics have ignited a trade war between the governments of Alberta and British Columbia – both led by NDP Premiers  – with the Prime Minister clearly siding with Alberta and the construction of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, as recently as February 1 .  The latest episode in the longstanding interprovincial feud was triggered on January 30,  when the B.C. government announced the formation of an independent scientific advisory panel to determine whether diluted bitumen can be effectively cleaned up after being spilled in water, and  “Until that committee reports, the government will impose a regulation prohibiting any expansion, either by pipeline or rail, of heavy oil sands crude.”  Details are in “B.C. announces oil transportation restrictions that could affect Kinder Morgan”  in the National Observer (Jan. 30); “B.C.’s Action on Bitumen Spills ‘Finds Kinder Morgan’s Achilles’ Heel’ (Feb. 5).

Alberta’s reaction was strong. First, in what Toronto’s Globe and Mail described as a “spat” on February 1:  “Alberta suspends electricity talks with B.C. over pipeline fight“. In a few days, The Energy Mix wrote ” Sour Grapes: Alberta to stop importing B.C. wine over Kinder Morgan feud” (Feb. 6) and  “Alberta Declares Boycott of B.C. Wine in Escalating Kinder Morgan Dispute” (Feb. 7 ) . CBC News reports reveal the escalating emotions: “The Alberta vs. B.C. pipeline fight. Now it’s war.” (Feb. 3) and “Weaponizing wine: Notley’s engineering a federal crisis in her battle with B.C.” and  “Oil, water and wine: “Escalating Alberta-B.C. feud threatens future of Trans Mountain pipeline” (Feb. 7); DeSmog Canada wrote “This might get Nasty: Why the Kinder Morgan standoff between Alberta and B.C. is a Zero-Sum Game” (Feb. 2). On February 9, Alberta’s Premier announced “a task force of prominent Canadians to respond to B.C.’s unconstitutional attack on the Trans Mountain Pipeline and the jobs that go with it”. The Market Access Task Force is loaded with government representatives and oil industry executives.

If you only have time to read one article about this dispute, read the analysis of Alberta’s Parkland Institute, in Let’s share actual facts about the Trans Mountain Pipeline. The three claims being made by the Alberta government are: 1. the  pipeline would generate $18.5 billion for “roads, schools, and hospitals”;  2.  it would create 15,000 jobs during construction, and 3. it would create 37,000 jobs per year. With deep expertise in the oil and gas industry, Parkland explains how these numbers were derived and why they are mostly outdated and selective.

Kinder-Morgan-Protest_Mark-KlotzWikimedia-Commons-800x485

Protests against Kinder Morgan will continue in B.C., with the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation  calling for a mass demonstration on Burnaby Mountain in March. – see the CBC summary here.

Stepping back,  see Andrea Harden-Donahue‘s January 24  blog for the Council of Canadians, “#StopKM: State of Resistance” , which details past resistance and demonstrations against KM,  and states that “the Pull Together campaign recently reached the fundraising target of $625,000 towards Indigenous legal challenges.” For a view of the legal issues and lawsuits (including First Nations’) in this longstanding fight, see a West Coast Environmental Law blog published on January 17, before this war erupted: “Whose (pipe)line is it anyway? Adventures in jurisdictional wonderland “.

 

UPDATED: How universities can confront climate change: new Canadian guide, and a new North American network

confronting climate_changeConfronting Climate Change on Campus  is a newly-released guide by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT/ACPPU), in response to growing awareness and concern amongst the professors and researchers who are members. It presents a three-step plan of practical action to be followed by academic staff associations and researchers across Canada:  To reduce the carbon footprint of campuses by improving building energy conservation and promoting low-carbon transportation;  to expand course offerings dedicated to climate change, and to encourage climate change research through grants and awards; and to advocate for the creation of association or institutional environment committees, or work with established committees, such as collective bargaining or workplace joint health and safety committees, to push climate change concerns.  The French version of the guide is here .

The University Climate Change Coalition,  to be known also  as UC3, was launched on February 6 at the 2018 Higher Education Climate Leadership Summit in Arizona. The new, North American-wide network pledges  to leverage their research and to accelerate local and regional climate action. To begin, in 2018 each UC3 institution will organize a climate change forum tailored to local and regional objectives, to bring together community and business leaders, elected officials and advocates. The 13 participating research institutions include University of British Columbia and University of Toronto, whose press release about UC3 also provides an update on U of T sustainability policies and initiatives.   The remaining UC3 institutions are: Arizona State University, California Institute of Technology, Tecnológico de Monterrey, La Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ohio State University, State University of New York, University of California, University of Colorado, University of Maryland, University of New Mexico, and University of Washington.

The growing awareness and concern amongst Canadian  academics can be partly credited to the research efforts of the Sustainability and Education Policy Network (SEPN) at the University of Saskatchewan, which CAUT has highlighted, most recently  in  “The Politics of Climate Change” in the CAUT  Bulletin (June 2017).  The article summarizes results of a survey of Canadian colleges and universities by researchers at SEPN, and calls for exactly the kinds of actions addressed in the new CAUT guide.  The scholarly article on which the CAUT Bulletin article is based,”Climate Change and the Canadian Higher Education System: An Institutional Policy Analysis” , appeared in the Canadian Journal of Higher Education in June  2017.  The key findings are: “less than half (44 per cent) have climate change-specific policies in place; those policies focus most often upon the built-campus environment with “underdeveloped secondary responses” to research, curriculum, community outreach and governance policies; and the “overwhelming” response of modifying infrastructure and curbing energy consumption and pollution, while important, risks masking deeper social and cultural dynamics which require addressing.”   A 2-page summary is here ; an infographic is here.

Other relevant SEPN publications include “The State of Fossil Fuel Divestment in Canadian Post-secondary Institutions” (2016) ; “50 Shades of Green: An Examination of Sustainability Policy on Canadian Campuses” (2015) , and the related Research Brief Greenwashing in Education: How Neoliberalism and Policy Mobility May Undermine Environmental Sustainability  (2014),  and “Greening the Ivory Tower: A Review of Educational Research on Sustainability in Post-secondary Education” , which appeared in the journal  Sustainability in 2013.

And elsewhere in the world:  According to The Guardian, on February 5, the University of Edinburgh , which divested from coal and tar sands investments in 2015, announced that it will sell its final £6.3m of fossil fuel holdings.  Edinburgh has a  £1bn endowment fund,  (exceeded in the U.K. only by Cambridge and Oxford). Signalling the change to a more climate-friendly investment strategy, Edinburgh has invested £150m in low carbon technology, climate-related research,  and businesses that directly benefit the environment.

UNISON launches a campaign for pension fund divestment with a Guide for Local Unions

uk MONEYOn January 10, 2018,  the U.K. union UNISON launched a campaign to encourage members of local government pension schemes to push for changes in the investment of their funds – specifically, to “explore alternative investment opportunities, allowing schemes to sell their shares and bonds in fossil fuels and to go carbon-free.”  A key tool in this campaign: Local Government Pension Funds – Divest From Carbon Campaign: A UNISON Guide, which states:  “Across the UK there are nearly 50 divestment campaigns targeting local government pension funds ….. In September this year, it was revealed that a total of £16 billion is invested in the fossil fuel industry by Local Government Pension funds.”  The new Guide explains how the U.K. pension system works for local government employees, and provides case studies of existing divestment campaigns.  In addition, it provides “Campaign Resources”, including a model campaign letter, a glossary of pension and investment terms,  and it reproduces the Pensions and Climate Motion passed at the 2017 UNISON Delegates conference.  The Guide was written by UNISON, in collaboration with ShareAction – a registered U.K. charity that promotes responsible investment practices by pension providers and fund managers.

Greener Jobs AllianceInformation about the divestment campaign, as well as information about the National Auditor’s Report re the U.K. Green Investment Bank,  is included in the January-February issue of the newsletter of the  Greener Jobs Alliance , a U.K.  partnership of “trade unions, student organisations, campaigning groups and a policy think tank.” The Greener Jobs Alliance is part of the Campaign against Climate Change Trade Union Group, which is organizing an event on March 10 in London: Jobs & Climate: Planning for a Future that Doesn’t Cost the Earth

Updated: Autonomous vehicles in Canada, job displacement, and bargaining at UPS

autonomous vehicleAutonomous Vehicles and the Future of Work in Canada  is a report released on January 11 by the Information and Communications Technology Council (ICTC) and funded by the Government of Canada’s Sectoral Initiatives Program.  It  provides an overview of the technology and benefits of autonomous vehicles, including “smart cities”. Most of the report is dedicated to an in-depth analysis of the impact of AV’s to Canada’s labour market, forecasting a demand of approximately 34,700 jobs in the industry by 2021, and considering the issues of job displacement and occupational skill requirements. The ICTC forecasts that the integration of AV technology will be slowed down in the trucking industry by a  shortage of drivers (estimated by the Canadian Truckers Alliance as 34,000 by 2024), giving the industry a buffer of time to plan training and retraining strategies. The report considers non-driving occupations (including mechanics, dispatchers, auto assembly workers,  insurance underwriters, heavy equipment operators) in a “deeper dive” about education, wages, and demand. The most in-demand occupations, with the highest wages,  are forecast to be in Information Technology: software and computer engineers, database analysts, computer programmers, etc. . The report concludes with five recommendations centered around the need for more research and  greater integration between policymakers, industry and academic experts, so that Canada can catch up with the autonomous vehicle “powerhouse” countries: U.S., Germany, and Japan.

The Canadian Senate Standing Committee on Transportation and Communication released its report on autonomous vehicles in January 2018, after hearing from over 78 witnesses from across Canada and the United States between March and October 2017  (The testimony is compiled here ).  The Submission by Teamsters Canada (Oct. 2017) focused mostly on the safety concerns of driverless vehicles, but raised the issue of displaced workers and their pension and benefits, stating that  “Teamsters Canada believes the study of automated and connected vehicles is not just a technical study, it must examine the social and workplace consequences of technology adoption.”  A fuller view of the concerns of Teamsters (and B.C. Taxi drivers) appears in an article in The Tyee, “Job Losses from Automated Vehicles Worry Truckers” (Feb. 2).

UPS electric truckThe issue of autonomous vehicles is being tested in the negotiations underway between UPS and the Teamsters in the U.S. An article from the Wall Street Journal is reposted at the Teamsters’ website: “Teamsters tell UPS no Drones or Driverless Trucks“.   The Teamsters Union has been closely monitoring all aspects of the technology and appeared at a House of Representatives Committee hearing on autonomous vehicles, according to a Teamsters press release from June 2017.

Within Canada, Ontario strives to be the leader in autonomous vehicle development, and employs almost 10,000 workers in the industry as of November, 2017, when the Premier announced the launch of an Autonomous Vehicle Innovation Network at Stratford, Ontario. Part of the $80 million investment over 5 years will be spent on a Talent Development Program, to support internships and fellowships for students and recent graduates with Ontario companies advancing C/AV technologies. Full details are at The AVIN Hub .