Clarke and Harper - peas in a pod - looking after shareholders verses constituents

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/05/18/bc-hydro-holmes-river-ruling.html

Holmes Hydro can proceed without environmental assessment

The Canadian Press

Posted: May 18, 2013 1:30 PM PT

Last Updated: May 18, 2013 2:19 PM PT

The Holmes River empties into the Fraser River southeast of McBride, B.C.

The B.C. Supreme Court has ruled that a hydro-electric development in northeastern B.C. should be allowed to proceed without an environmental assessment.

The dispute over the assessment of 10 power generation sites along a 40-kilometre stretch of the Holmes River was launched by a coalition of conservation groups.
Alarm raised over lack of process in run-of-river project

The Environmental Assessment Office said it wouldn't conduct a review of the project, but the coalition -- which consists of the Watershed Watch Salmon Society and the David Suzuki Foundation -- asked the court to overturn the decision.

The coalition claimed the assessment was necessary because the 10 sites together would generate more than the 50 megawatts needed to set off the environmental review.

'The public doesn't have a chance to fully understand what the likely impacts are going to be, so we lose the public transparency that you get with an environmental assessment'—Aaron Hill, Watershed Watch Salmon Society

Instead, the court sided with the EAO on Friday, ruling that no assessment is required because each of the plants are considered separate projects with a generating capacity of less than 15 megawatts.

While Holmes Hydro Inc. has said that all 10 power plants must be built to make the project economical, they are actually individual parts that can function independently of each other, the ruling said.

Aaron Hill with Watershed Watch Salmon Society said he believes the project could endanger the chinook salmon population in the Holmes River, but it is hard to know the exact environmental impacts unless an assessment takes place.

Mouth of Holmes River, near McBride
"We know what's at stake, but the public doesn't have a chance to fully understand what the likely impacts are going to be, so we lose the public transparency that you get with an environmental assessment," he said.

Justice Nathan Smith concluded that since Holmes Hydro has already spent $2 million on developing its proposal under the assumption that the project can go ahead without an environmental assessment, and would need to rack up additional costs if an assessment is deemed necessary, "the balance of convenience clearly favours Holmes Hydro and I would not grant the relief requested."

Hill said the court decision highlights how weak environmental assessment laws are in B.C.

"The current act ... gives the Environmental Assessment Office a tremendous amount of discretion as to whether a project is reviewable under the Act," he said.

"It speaks to the need for the government to clarify and strengthen the environment assessment laws instead of continually weakening them if (government) wants to actually protect the public interest and protect our fish and wildlife population."

© The Canadian Press, 2013

 

[agentaqua]

First Harper and his omnibus bills - now this. 4 MORE years of environmental degradation in favour of politician's stock portfolios and f*ck everyone else until election time where they take our money to create attack ads to get back in.

Our forefathers foght and died in WWI and WWII so we could have democracy - and this is what these clowns do with it. Guess we, as voters - need to share some of the blame.

Not sure how to fix a system so terribly broken.

 

[agentaqua]

Justice Nathan Smith states that the "balance of convenience" (whatever that is) clearly favours Holmes and [paraphrasing] the rest of you public folks are screwed so this company can sell it's stock shares on the open market.

Who the h*ck is Justice Nathan Smith - who "appointed" him, and why is he called "justice", because he seems to have demonstrated no public justice here - just corporate nepotism.

Why does the "balance of convenience" outweigh good governance and proper public oversight?

I thought the scales of justice were blind? Guess gold weighs more in those balances...

 

[Whole in the Water]

I predict that this will be just the tip of the iceberg with the pro-development Clarke-Harper partnership. IMO if it is just up to Christy she will allow the Northern pipeline to go through as long as she thinks BC gets enough royalities for letting it happen. To add insult to injury the Liberal's big economic long term plan is built upon natural gas wells that will require environmentally dangerous hydraulic fracking, as well as more pipelines to get it to market.

Add this to more independant power projects and net pen fish farms, I sure hope that the environment can withstand this next batch of assaults!

How much wild fish, animals, wilderness will be left for our children and grandchildren?? Some would say we shouldn't care as long as we have job right?

 

[trendsetter]

Justice Nathan Smith states that the "balance of convenience" (whatever that is) clearly favours Holmes and [paraphrasing] the rest of you public folks are screwed so this company can sell it's stock shares on the open market.

Who the h*ck is Justice Nathan Smith - who "appointed" him, and why is he called "justice", because he seems to have demonstrated no public justice here - just corporate nepotism.

Why does the "balance of convenience" outweigh good governance and proper public oversight?

I thought the scales of justice were blind? Guess gold weighs more in those balances...

Agreed, there should've been an environmental review. But this was a supreme court decision not provincial or federal government.

 

[agentaqua]

Agreed, there should've been an environmental review. But this was a supreme court decision not provincial or federal government.

It was the BC Supreme Court. How do the judges get appointed? By whom and how?

 

[trendsetter]

It was the BC Supreme Court. How do the judges get appointed? By whom and how?

Supreme court justices are appointed by the minister of justice (federal government not provincial). Nathan Smith was appointed by Martin Cauchon in 2005.

 

[agentaqua]

Supreme court justices are appointed by the minister of justice (federal government not provincial). Nathan Smith was appointed by Martin Cauchon in 2005.

Thanks for the info, TS.

So, Smith was “appointed” by Cauchon in 2005. Any ideas how the nomination process works? How does a judge get nominated, through to appointment? who nominated Smith?

It is interesting that the person who appointed Smith – Cauchon – who was a Liberal MP - is also Vice-Chairman of the Canada China Business Council; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Cauchon

it is similarly interesting that the Canada China Business Council lists the Power Corporation of Canada as one of it's founders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_China_Business_Council

There are also officials from the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, and Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada on this board.

I find it interesting that the Power Corporation of Canada is controlled by Paul Desmarais, Sr.. Paul Desmarais, Jr. is one of thirty members of the North American Competitiveness Council, a group whose advice directs the policies of Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Corporation_of_Canada

in addition:

Former Prime Minister of Canada Brian Mulroney also has a relationship with Power Corporation. Mulroney's friend Ian MacDonald described Desmarais as “Mulroney’s mentor in the business world,” and it is believed that Mulroney has done legal work for Power Corp. since the end of his term as Prime Minister. Additionally, former Mulroney Minister of Transport Don Mazankowski is currently Power Corp.'s company director.

It is also interesting that Cauchon is a partner with the law firm of Heenan Blaikie with other lawyers/politicians like Don Johnston (MP) and Jean Chrétien. I've always wondering why there are so many lawyers who end-up as politicians, and then head back to their practices after political life. Think maybe they change the laws for their favour first?

Other lawyers in this firm include: Lawrence Alexander who has advised the British Columbia government as well as non-governmental organizations on environmental law and policy. For half of those years, he was directly advising deputy ministers to the Premier. Lawrence has played a lead role in the making of many environmental laws, including laws concerning tailpipe emissions, fish protection, drinking water, and environmental auditing.

Wonder who advised the BC government on this new EAO change for this Holmes Hydro court case?

 

[agentaqua]

Liberals given 'clear mandate' on resource development: Clark

By David P. Ball
Published May 15, 2013 05:37 pm | 19 Comments

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/201...eadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=200513

Emboldened on her first day as Premier-elect, Christy Clark deftly navigated around questions about oil tanker and pipeline safety at her first post-election press conference this afternoon.

Clark told reporters in her downtown Vancouver office that the BC Liberals' 50-seat surprise victory last night -- shutting out the NDP by 17 seats -- demonstrates that voters have given her government a "clear mandate" in its fourth term, particularly on economic and resource development.

"Now that we have a clear mandate from the people of British Columbia, we are going to get down to the business of governing immediately," Clark told reporters. "People were concerned about the economy, and the people of British Columbia made their voice heard."

Surveying an election result map, however, reveals a nearly unbroken orange belt descended upon the coast like a line of driftwood washed ashore, in a province otherwise mostly Liberal. Could this stark chart of the NDP's coastal backing -- with only two exceptions on eastern Vancouver Island -- say anything about the Official Opposition's anti-tanker stance and fears of an oil spill disaster if the Enbridge and Kinder Morgan pipelines go ahead?

"I don't know that I'd read too much into that," Clark said, in response to The Tyee's question. "Those ridings have traditionally been some of the strongest ridings for the NDP well before there was any discussion around heavy oil in British Columbia.

"Resource communities clearly heard the message about protecting our economy, growing the number of jobs in our province, making sure that we are in support of private sector, and growing the economy."

Though there are no "definitive" answers yet to why citizens voted the way they did, for Dogwood Institute campaign director Eric Swanson it isn't surprising that most coastal ridings voted for parties opposed to the Enbridge and Kinder Morgan proposals.

"We have a wall of staunch opposition to these tankers and pipelines," Swanson told The Tyee. "This didn't go away last night – and it's only going to continue to build.

"If you're boarding a BC Ferry, boarding a seaplane, going fishing, or just walking your dog on the beach, you know what it is to live on the coast. You know that it's not worth the risk to our economy, environment, and way of life. If an election comes along and a candidate is really standing up to these threats of oil tankers and pipelines, it's not surprising they would be rewarded. . . A bunch of MLAs were elected who staunchly oppose them."

Swanson believes that Enbridge may not fare as well as expected when the province makes its final submission to the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel (JRP) at the end of this month, wrapping up a year of traveling hearings dominated by public opposition to the projects.

"Towards the end of the campaign, Christy Clark did start to seemingly lean one way," Swanson suggested. "She reiterated that Enbridge has not met the five conditions set out by her government.

"In 16 days, they are making their final presentation to the Joint Review Panel. It's hard to see how they magically do in the next two weeks; I would be really surprised if this government argued in favour of Enbridge proposal at the end of May, given what they've said."

But Clark manoeuvred around reporters' questions about the controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway proposal, which would pump heavy oil sands crude from Alberta to a Kitimat, B.C. terminal. That project promises to continue complicating Clark's occasionally tense relationship with the Conservative governments in both Ottawa and Alberta.

With the exception of the NDP's coastal ridings, ridings in northern B.C. went overwhelmingly Liberal. But Clark insisted the results do not necessarily point to significant regional differences on the pipeline issue, but rather resource development overall in those regions.

"I think that support for the project is pretty mixed all across the province," Clark said. "I wouldn't say that Northerners have a different opinion of it overall than people in the Kootenays, the Interior, or the Lower Mainland necessary. People have pretty profound concerns about it; I do...

"Talking about the huge opportunities in exporting liquified natural gas, the huge opportunities in mining, and expanding our markets for forestry -- that has a real resonance in Northern and Interior communities. That's part of the economic message that people really heard in that part of the province.”

Clark's demeanour invoked her victory speech: "humbled" by her party's nail-biting election day victory, despite losing her own seat to NDP candidate David Eby. She told reporters that NDP leader Adrian Dix – who did re-gained his seat in the Legislature – was a "tough competitor" and an "incredibly hard worker."

"I have to say coming out of this campaign," Clark added, "he earned my respect."

Though she may have held back on her usually gregarious wise-cracking for the press corps assembled in her office, as she left the podium -- set up against a backdrop of Vancouver's port and a container ship plying the inlet waters -- Premier Clark paused to grin mischievously back at the huddle of reporters before slipping away.

David P. Ball is a freelance writer and photojournalist on Coast Salish territories.

 

[agentaqua]

This video sums it up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izbUjScUwyA

 

[Dennis.t]

Crusty and Harpo in bed together? Pipeline a coming!

 

[Dave]

Crusty and Harpo in bed together? Pipeline a coming!

Kinder- Morgan for sure, LNG's probably, Enbridge unlikely, yet .. depends on the Keystone decision, imo.

 

[triplenickel]

It was coming regardless of which party won, remember the NDP's stance?

 

[agentaqua]

It really is time for a change – no matter what happened in the election


Warren Bell

Posted: May 15th, 2013

We now have a return to the status quo ante in BC – a majority Liberal government that cannot be stopped, slowed down, or modified in its pursuit of a public policy agenda that is a “carbon” copy (and I use the phrase advisedly) of the Stephen Harper approach to governance.

The difference between the two parties, in terms of popular vote, was small – less than 5% (44.4% for the Liberals, 39.49% for the NDP). But with our deeply flawed, irrational and outmoded electoral system, where balance and diversity is sacrificed to one-size-fits-all, that small margin meant a huge difference in seats won. It meant 50 seats for the Liberals, and 33 for the NDP (59% vs 39%).

In addition, the turnout for the election was poor. Only 52% of eligible voters in BC actually went to the polls and voted this time round.

In a fascinating turn of events, the youth of BC, for the first time in a very long time, voted differently from their parents, and voted for a change in government -- not necessarily because they preferred the NDP, but because they preferred to not be faced with the same government again.

Things started to change one week after the writ was dropped on April 16th, and the election campaign officially began. As this Wikipedia graph shows (below), the Liberal campaign had clearly been poised at the starting gate, ready to pounce aggressively on the NDP front-runners, who had been touted to win for months and months.



Aided by large financial backing from a group of rich Alberta businesspeople, heavily invested in development of the Oil (Tar) Sands and natural gas “fracking” and other resource extraction, as well as the support of Stephen Harper’s Ottawa team, the PR process swung into action, raising the old fears of “socialism” destroying jobs, and resolutely refusing to acknowledge the long-term implications of global climate change.

And it “worked” – meaning, in partisan political terms, that the Liberals won this remarkably irrelevant election

A highly authoritative study on natural gas extraction – the kind of scientific research Stephen Harper won’t allow anymore in Canada – was published in January in the prestigious scientific journal Nature. It showed that the sole basis of the Liberal policy for jobs and prosperity, coupled with a soupcon of environmental protection, is deeply flawed.

Christy Clark is resting the entire economic future of BC on natural gas extraction in north-eastern BC. She campaigned aggressively on this one single point, and knocked the opposition for being hesitant about this industry.

This study showed that opponents of this policy were right.

The “clean” image of natural gas is utterly false.

Leakage of climate-changing methane gas from the extraction process is now known to be radically higher – 4% to 9% or even more – than previous industry estimates of 0.5%.

Natural gas will be just about the same as the dirtiest of fossil fuels – coal.

To quote from a review of the Nature study: “Setting aside methane leaks for a moment, fracking, processing and pumping natural gas over long distances consumes large amounts of energy. LNG facilities are also highly energy intensive. One LNG facility would emit 2 Mt of CO2e from burning natural gas to power the operation….For all these reasons LNG exports would not contribute to lower global carbon emissions even if they replaced coal as an energy source”

Christy Clark’s basis for economic recovery is about as short-term and meaningless as giving a thimble full of Koolaid to a parched wanderer in the desert.

No wonder BC’s youth, who will have to live with the consequences of decision-making today, voted to not let this happen. Their future is on the line – and thanks to the current election results, that future don’t look pretty.

But that’s not all.

The relentless support of broad corporate priorities under the Liberal government is also set to continue. Here are some other consequences of the election’s outcome.

It means:
•The Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline has a vastly improved chance of going through, because behind the scenes, Christy Clark is in lock-step with Stephen Harper and his lieutenants Oliver and Kent; diluted bitumen will be shipped to BC’s coast, and then off to China, where (if it doesn’t spill or run aground) it will be processed and burned (or shipped back and burned here) and accelerate global climate change
•The Kinder Morgan proposal to double the pipeline that leads through the province to Vancouver, carrying "tar" (bitumen) from the "Tar [Oil] Sands", will be approved; tanker traffic in Vancouver’s harbour will jump from 6 a month to 30 a month, and inevitable spills will occur along the pipeline route, right down into Port Coquitlam and Port Moody, and tanker accidents will be far more likely.
•BC will NOT do its own environmental assessment of either pipeline project; Gordon Campbell gave this right away to Stephen Harper, and Christy Clark won’t ask her political friend to give it back.
•Pesticides will continue to be sprayed over lawns, parks, playgrounds and ornamental gardens, and on private vegetable gardens, all over BC – as the pesticide industry (and no-one else) has said is only right and proper; short and long-term ill health and environmental damage from this practice will continue to accumulate
•Careful assessment of drugs by UBC’s Therapeutics Initiative – which has saved the citizens of BC millions of dollars and hundreds of lives – and the very existence of the Therapeutics Initiative itself, will continue to be threatened by drug industry collaboration with the provincial government; sales of potentially harmful drugs will continue to rise, supported by the policies and actions of the Liberal party.
•Natural gas exploration and fracking will move ahead very fast, despite the scientific evidence cited above that this is a very bad idea in the medium and longer term.
•Campaign finance reform -- getting rid of corporate and union donations -- will not happen, and as a result….
•Corporate priorities will continue to dominate the policies of the Liberal government, whose campaign funding consisted mostly of corporate dollars (and that’s just the officially declared funding!)
•Coal exports through Vancouver's port and through Tsawwasen will quadruple or more, thanks to the close relationship between the federal Conservatives and provincial Liberals.
•Forest exploitation will continue unchecked – remember Bill C-8, that nearly gave away all of BC’s forests to the big forest companies? You can bet something like it will come back to haunt us.
•Stephen Harper's government will continue to play a pivotal role in BC government policy, with an ongoing exchange of staff, money and general support between the two operations.
•Fish farms will remain in the path of migrating wild salmon, continuing the devastation of the latter; BC’s government will cooperate with Stephen Harper’s cabinet in suppressing information and scientific data about the deadly impact of viruses bred in fish farms.
•The "greening" of the economy, so vital to our survival in the 21st century and beyond -- tax shifting, renewable energy development, eco-tourism, local food programs, organic farming, support for higher education in green jobs, environmental teaching in schools -- will continue to fade from the government radar
•Social support programs, already cruelly under-funded, will stay the same or be reduced even further; the disabled, the mentally ill, the abused and marginalized, the single parents will be kept poor and silent, pinned down by inhumane support systems
•Government cronyism, in a government that has developed a wide range of "obligations" (as all governments do the longer they remain in power) will continue unabated.
•Participatory government, where citizens have real input into government policy, and are actively encouraged to do so, will die on the order paper; backroom decision-making, the standard approach of the Liberals in BC, and the Conservatives in Ottawa, will remain the norm.
•Election reform, giving more representation to the diversity of political positions in this province, is a dead duck.

The only option to all these developments is you and me, standing together. Ordinary citizens, sensing that our political leaders are not handling the priorities of the 21st century realistically, can join with our fellow citizens in the Occupy Movement, the Arab Spring, the Quebec students’ action, and most importantly in the wonderfully inspiring IdleNoMore movement, and compel our leaders to make better decisions.

Time to stiffen our sinews and buckle down to work.

Our children, and especially our grandchildren and great-grandchildren and on down the unborn generations, are depending on us.
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/opinion/it-really-time-change-–-no-matter-what-happened-election

 

[finaddict]

It really is time for a change – no matter what happened in the election

The only option to all these developments is you and me, standing together. Ordinary citizens, sensing that our political leaders are not handling the priorities of the 21st century realistically, can join with our fellow citizens in the Occupy Movement, the Arab Spring, the Quebec students’ action, and most importantly in the wonderfully inspiring IdleNoMore movement, and compel our leaders to make better decisions.

Oh yeah, that's inspiring. Really????? Are you really wanting to try to justify another""Occupy"/"Idlenomore" movement???? If that is the case, Warren Bell is as big a clown as they were through the whole "Idle-No-More-give-me-stuff-that-I-haven't-earned-but-feel-I-am-entitled-to-because-you-have-it-and-I-want-it" movement

 

[agentaqua]

Finaddict: that was an Op Ed I posted by Warren Bell (follow the link). Doubt if he reads this forum...

 

[finaddict]

Finaddict: that was an Op Ed I posted by Warren Bell (follow the link). Doubt if he reads this forum...

Yes AA, I know that but YOU are the one promoting it. If you endorse it, you get to sit in it.

 

[Sasquatch]

Our forefathers foght and died in WWI and WWII so we could have democracy - and this is what these clowns do with it.

I find it surprising how can you rant about our forefathers fighting for democracy and then when you are not happy with the outcome of a vote, decide the answer is to call elected officials "clowns" and support radical movements like occupy and idle. Both of which basically want to ignore the laws instituted by our democratically elected governments.

Some people only like democracy when it suits their agendas.

 

[agentaqua]

Sasquatch: I reposted the Op Ed because it had some interesting ideas in it and I thought I'd share. Some of the Op Ed I agreed with - some I did not. One of the most important things that our forfathers preserved was the right to free speech - the right to dissent - including posting things I or you may not agree with. That's the democracy I want to preserve and protect - and I hope you do too. Maybe you want to post your opposition to the author of this article by writing an opposing view in the same paper. I'd like to hear your ideas, too.

 

[agentaqua]

http://westcoastnativenews.com/harper-blocks-interview-with-scientist-on-oilsands/

Harper Blocks Interview With Scientist On Oilsands

derrick on May 31st, 2013 10:20 pm - No Comment Yet




The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has declined an interview request with a scientist to discuss the environmental impacts of oilsands development because it objected to a recent Postmedia News report, a federal government spokesman wrote in an email.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is one of seven federal departments and agencies under investigation by Parliament’s Information Commissioner, Suzanne Legault, over allegations that the government is “muzzling” and restricting access to government scientists.

The Postmedia News report, published on Tuesday, quoted an internal memorandum that said the department had “recently” discovered that in-situ oilsands projects could disturb water sources and harm fish habitat.

Postmedia News also reported in the story that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government introduced changes to environmental laws – one year after receiving the memo – that would allow it to exclude some oilsands projects from reviews.

“We are declining your interview request in light of the fact your article is incorrect in suggesting that the memo was in relation to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 and Fisheries Act amendments,” wrote Frank Stanek, manager of media relations from the department in an email to Postmedia News on Wednesday evening.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has published the list of proposed projects that would be subject to an automatic federal environmental review, and it has confirmed that in-situ oilsands projects, which require the injection of high-pressure steam, deep underground to extract heavy oil, were not on this list.

Another media outlet, iPolitics, also reported in the past week that in-situ oilsands projects were excluded from the list and that an industry lobby group, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, had been lobbying the agency in recent months, according to a federal registry. It is not unusual for industry associations to lobby federal departments and agencies to defend their interests on matters of public policy.

The Postmedia report also included comments from the fisheries department saying that these types of projects did not require federal assessments in the past and that it didn’t anticipate they would require reviews under the amended federal environmental laws.

The report also quoted the agency explaining that the environment minister could still require an environmental assessment because of the “potential for adverse environmental effects on matters of federal jurisdiction or if there are public concerns about those effects.”

In his email from Wednesday evening, Stanek repeated that the memo predated the changes to environmental laws, as Postmedia News had reported.

He also said that the department had not eliminated reviews in higher risk areas.

“The memo clearly states that we would continue to work with Departments, Provinces, proponents and others to assess any of these projects where there may be potential for higher risk to fisheries habitat,” Stanek wrote.

The department also sent out letters to various newspapers in the Postmedia Network with similar comments, attributed to David Balfour, a senior assistant deputy minister.

Erin Filliter, a spokeswoman for federal Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield, later wrote on Twitter that the letter was “correcting” the story on environmental assessments.



Postmedia News emailed a series of questions to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans about its statement on Thursday morning:

- Does your department or its minister’s office believe that scientists should only give interviews to journalists that write stories in a certain way?

- Are scientists in the department allowed to speak freely about their research on impacts of in-situ oilsands projects on water and fish habitat?

- What makes the department uncomfortable about a story that compares a memo about impacts on fish habitat to a subsequent decision by the government to change environmental laws?

- In what way does the department believe the memo was not related to the changes to environmental laws?

- What is the difference between continuing to work with departments, provinces, proponents and others to assess projects versus putting in-situ oilsands development on a project list that requires reviews?

The department said Friday that it was planning to respond to these questions later in the day.

The memo, released through access to information legislation, also included a background document, dated March 30, 2011, that challenged statements, proposed by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, “based on the advice from experts in Alberta and Natural Resources Canada” that there was “little possibility” of in-situ operations disrupting fish habitat.

The document said this statement should be “deleted” since it did not accurately reflect the concerns of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

A spokesman from Natural Resources Canada told Postmedia News it was unable to locate the official who provided the advice from 2011, that downplayed the impacts of in-situ oilsands projects.

“Since the time of your request yesterday, we have been unable to confirm which specific departmental official would have been consulted,” wrote Natural Resources Canada spokesman Paul Duchesne in an email on Thursday. “Please bear in mind that the briefing note you reference was produced two years ago.”