Premier Alison Redford’s government gets failing grades from the public for its handling of a half-dozen hot button files, from managing government finances to overseeing health care, according to a new poll commissioned by the Herald.

The Leger survey sees the Progressive Conservatives continuing to run neck-and-neck with the Wildrose in voter popularity, with the two parties locked in a statistical dead heat.

But the poll shows more than half of Albertans disapprove of the Tory government’s performance in six of 10 different areas and its ratings have dropped by 10 to 25 percentage points across the board since just before the provincial election in March 2012.

Ian Large, Leger’s Alberta vice-president, said he was surprised by the sharp drop for the PCs, but said it’s a carry-over from the bruising spring sitting of the legislature and its widely-criticized provincial budget.

“They were really getting hammered on all of these issues every day,” he said in an interview Friday.

“They haven’t had a chance to sort of rebuild their credibility and rebuild the approval on those things.”

Large said the government’s efforts to deal with June’s massive flooding — for which it had generally good reviews in a September poll — hasn’t boosted its fortunes in these other areas.

The Tories had their worst showing on management of government finances, with the approval of 20 per cent of respondents and the disapproval of 64 per cent.

Earlier this year, the provincial budget saw Alberta project its sixth straight deficit, even as the Tories throttled back spending.

Redford’s government has also embarked on a new borrowing plan for capital at the same time that it’s introduced a new way of presenting the government’s balance sheet.

Mount Royal University political analyst David Taras said the party is definitely suffering a hangover from the budget, which is also reflected in its poor rankings in areas such as handling savings and the Heritage Fund, education and health care.

“The budget cuts have hit and all of a sudden there are issues … that weren’t front and centre and are now top of mind for a lot of people,” Taras said.

With continuing problems in areas such as wait times and recent turmoil in Alberta Health Services, the Tories have a 57 per cent disapproval rating on health care compared to 29 per cent approval.

The government has also been battered by the opposition parties over a series of alleged ethical lapses in areas such as political donations and conflict of interest.

Only 22 per cent of respondents approve of the PC performance in running an open and honest government, while 61 per cent disapprove.

“This is a post-flood scorecard,” said Taras. “We’re back to hardball.”

Large noted the Tories are not doing well even in areas such managing as the economy — where it received a 52 per cent disapproval rate — despite the province’s robust economic health.

On taxes, where the PCs have made no significant changes, the government had a 44 per cent disapproval rate and 38 per cent approval.

Redford’s government received its highest marks in two areas, with 44 per cent approval and 33 per cent disapproval for its handling of crime and social issues.

On energy and oilsands development, the Tories have an approval rate of 45 per cent against 38 per cent disapproval.

Energy issues are the Conservatives strong point.

In a separate question, the PCs were ranked as the best party in Alberta to manage oilsands development, with 25 per cent support compared to Wildrose’s 19 per cent, 10 per cent for the Liberals and eight per cent for the NDP.

And 43 per cent of Albertans believe the federal and provincial governments have done a good job trying to convince the Obama administration to approve the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, compared to 30 per cent who disagree and 26 per cent who say they don’t know.

“They have been working very hard in getting in front of the right people in the U.S. and making the case. And they’ve been very good in making sure that we know that they’re making the case,” said Large.

When Albertans were asked who they would vote for if a provincial election were held now, the Wildrose Party would have the support of 33 per cent of decided voters while the PCs are at 31 per cent.

The Liberals are at 18 per cent support and the NDP are backed by 14 per cent of voters.

The numbers are essentially unchanged from the last Leger poll in September, though the Liberals have enjoyed a slight uptick.

Grant MacEwan University political scientist Chaldeans Mensah said the numbers aren’t good for the Tories, but the Wildrose Party should be doing better given the government’s negative report card.

“The Wildrose needs to do a better job to take advantage of the difficulties of the government,” he said.

“If they’re in a dead heat, amid all the dissatisfaction and the disapproval expressed by the public, it means the Wildrose can’t assume it’s simply going to be beneficiaries of any problems.”

Leger conducted an online survey of 1,686 eligible voters between Oct. 11 and Oct. 14. The margin of error for the total sample is plus or minus 2.4 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

[email protected]

EDMONTON – AltaLink says it will cost about $200 million more than an initial estimate to build the 350-kilometre Western Alberta Transmission Line (WATL).

In early 2011, AltaLink figured the 500-kilovolt direct current line from the Genesee area west of Edmonton to a point east of Calgary would cost about $1.5 billion, but could be as little as $1.3 billion and as much as $1.7 billion. The new estimate brings the new total to $1.65 billion.

The company said the increase is driven by higher than forecast construction labour costs, a permitting process that was longer than expected, and the decision to use more expensive monopole structures near the Gleniffer Reservoir.

Work has begun on the project, which should be operating by late 2015. AltaLink said WATL will improve the reliability and efficiency of the Alberta interconnected electric system.

TORONTO – An Enbridge proposal to reverse the flow of a pipeline that runs between southern Ontario and Montreal puts First Nations communities at risk, threatens water supplies and could endanger vulnerable species in ecologically sensitive areas, a National Energy Board panel heard Wednesday.

The arguments — put to the three-member panel by representatives of two First Nations and an environmental group — were among the first of many final submissions being made to the board this week before it makes its decision on Enbridge’s Line 9.

The Calgary-based company (TSX:ENB) wants to reverse Line 9 and increase its capacity to move 300,000 barrels of crude oil per day, up from the current 240,000 barrels. It has also asked for permission to move different types of oil, including a heavier form of crude.

“If there ever was a spill it would definitely affect our fishing, our harvesting and all our traditional hunting grounds,” Myeengun Henry, a member of the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation said outside the hearing.

His community, along with the Aamjiwnaang First Nation, expressed concerns about Enbridge’s reversal project.

“This line is pretty old, close to 40 years old…I don’t think the pipeline will be able to control the new substance it’s pumping through.”

Lawyer Scott Smith, who represented both First Nations that have land near or on top of the pipeline, said the board has a duty to ensure the Crown adequately consults with his clients before making a decision — a consultation he said hasn’t happened.

“My clients’ central concerns are that repurposing Line 9 will increase the frequency and size of releases of crude oil following implementation of the project, and that such releases will cause large and more severe health, environmental and socio-economic effects and corresponding infringement of their rights,” he told the NEB panel.

Opponents of the Line 9 reversal claim the crude Enbridge wants to transport is more corrosive and will stress the aging infrastructure and increase the chance of a leak.

But Enbridge has said what will flow through the line will not be a raw oilsands product — although there will be a mix of light crude and processed bitumen.

The change in product was nonetheless of concern to Emily Conger, who represented the Algonquin to Adirondacks Collaborative, a group which aims to preserve a biologically rich area that stretches from Belleville, Ont., to Cornwall, Ont., and up to Alognquin Park.

“If there were a bitumen spill in the A to A region, it could affect the drinking water for people who live there because we have such vulnerable aquifers, it could affect wildlife habitat in this area, which is so key for wildlife movement and climate change mitigation and it could ultimately result in extinctions if it hit vulnerable enough species at risk,” she said outside the hearing.

“The main concern we have is the change in product…you put that in an aging pipeline and it looks to me a recipe for disaster.”

Conger, who also called Line 9 a “geriatric, quarter-inch-thick pipeline” in her submissions, asked the NEB to compel Enbridge to either entirely upgrade and relay its pipeline in vulnerable regions or make it carry lighter kinds of oil only.

“To Enbridge the risks of Line 9 are acceptable…I don’t know if all the integrity digs Enbridge does will ever suitably address the risk of using a badly designed, aging pipeline in such an ecologically important and vulnerable area, carrying such toxic products,” she said.

Enbridge, however, has repeatedly said the products a reversed Line 9 would transport would not erode the pipeline.

“The argument that (diluted bitumen) causes corrosion on the interior of pipelines has been debunked by science,” spokesman Graham White said outside the hearing, adding that the majority of oil that would be transported on Line 9 would remain a lighter product.

“The destination refineries are light refineries. They don’t have the capability to refine significant amounts of heavy oil.”

White also explained that the pipeline was constantly monitored for leaks, cracks and any faults, with certain sections being re-coated or reinforced as needed.

“Regardless of whether the reversal goes ahead or not, we conduct our integrity management program as we do with all our lines and our systems,” he said.

The City of Toronto, which the pipeline runs through, said it didn’t oppose the Line 9 project so long as Enbridge met specific safety and operational considerations, including 13 proposed conditions the city wanted the NEB to consider.

“Our principal concerns were the proper management of integrity, the proper preparation in the event there is a spill and financial assurance in the event there is a spill,” said Graham Rempe.

“Our biggest concern is we supply the drinking water for some 3.2 million people in the city and the region around it and we do want to be sure that that water is fully protected against the effects of oil should a leak occur.”

Rempe told the board the city was still searching for specific details on just how Enbridge would respond to a spill in a large, congested urban area.

Enbridge says the 831-kilometre-long line is constantly monitored from an Edmonton control centre and can be shut down within 10 minutes if an unexplained reading comes in. A sudden loss of pressure means an automatic shutdown. The line is also patrolled on foot and by air.

If a leak occurs, a team can be on site in up to three hours, but the company is working to improve that by adding an emergency crew in Mississauga, Ont., to deal with problems in the Greater Toronto Area.

At hearings last week in Montreal, Enbridge argued that the Line 9 reversal will redeploy an existing pipeline in a safe, efficient and economical way to the benefit of refineries in Quebec, oil producers in Western Canada “and the broader Canadian public interest.”

Unifor, the newly created mega-union that represents the Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, said it was in favour of Line 9 because it believed the project will increase Canadian energy security and sustain and create jobs.

Unifor emphasized, however, that its support of the proposal was based primarily on the pipeline being used for domestic refining and not for export. Enbridge has said it has no present plans to make Line 9 an export pipeline.

Line 9 originally shuttled oil from Sarnia, Ont., to Montreal but was reversed in the late 90s in response to market conditions, to pump imported crude westward. Enbridge is now proposing to flow oil back eastward to service refineries in Ontario and Quebec.

A portion of the line has already received approval for reversal and has been sending oil from Sarnia to North Westover, Ont. — about 30 kilometres northwest of Hamilton — since August.

OTTAWA – The federal Conservatives hope to counter “intense and sustained public relations campaigns” against Alberta’s oilsands with a $24-million international advertising blitz.

The two-year ad campaign will target political and business leaders, as well as media organizations and domestic political advocates in the United States, Europe and Asia.  According to a request for proposals issued by Natural Resources Canada, the government believes domestic and international campaigns against the oilsands are partly to blame for proposed regulations that “unfairly target the oil sands” in the U.S. and Europe.

The document specifically references California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Section 526 of the U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act, and Europe’s Fuel Quality Directive as proposals based on “preconceived notions about the oil sands that are not supported by science.”

“Canada has been, and continues to be, the target of intense and sustained public relations campaigns by domestic and international organizations, criticizing our domestic natural resource development policies and companies engaged in resource developments,” the NRCan document reads. “These campaigns have resulted in inaccurate information becoming part of the public debate.”

The government intends to contract the advertising campaign to an agency to provide “rapid response” and proactive public and media campaigns through both traditional and social media. The agency would be expected to develop a specialized website for “C-class” business leaders – CEOs and CFOs – and secure advertising placement on the internet and public places such as billboards. “Earned media” – which basically means news media coverage of the campaign – also figures in the strategy.

The department’s planned messaging highlights an “enhanced regulatory system” and Canada’s commitment to safeguard the environment, as well as “unparalleled” investment opportunities in the natural resource sector.

“Canada is a world leader in the responsible development of natural resources,” one planned talking point reads. “Canada is a stable and secure energy choice compared to international alternatives.”

The short-term objective of the campaign is to draw people to a new website – travel.gc.ca is cited as an example – that provides more information on Canada’s natural resource sector and investment opportunities, and increase meetings with business people.

The long-term goal, according to the department’s plan, is to increase direct foreign investments in the Canadian natural resources sector.

“This campaign will raise awareness in key international markets that Canada is a secure and reliable supplier of natural resources,” department spokesperson Jacinthe Perras said in an email.

The PR push comes at a time when the federal Conservatives are having a tough time selling the Keystone XL pipeline, which has met opposition from environmental groups on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border, and as it grapples with Europe’s proposal for a fuel quality directive.

Canada maintains the proposed fuel directive is a discriminatory and non-scientific approach that singles out oilsands as having higher carbon emissions than other sources, without any sound studies examining the greenhouse gases from the conventional oil the EU actually imports.

Canada has previously threatened to launch a trade war with the European Union and take the fuel proposal to the World Trade Organization if it is passed.

An independent assessment commissioned by the Harper government, analyzing the carbon content of European fuels, was due back in late September. Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has promised to release the findings in the coming weeks.

The government wants to use the data in the report to support its case about how oilsands-derived fuels fare against those from Europe.

Peter Julian, the New Democrats’ energy and natural resources critic, said he does not expect the advertising campaign to change many minds about Canada’s environmental record abroad.

“The Harper government has a PR problem, because they haven’t taken action on the oil sands (and) put in place measures that ensure polluters pay, ensure we have safe pipelines, ensuring that we are lessening as much as possible the impact in that region in Alberta,” Julian said. “Because we’re not seeing action from the Harper government, there’s a negative perception of Canada as a whole … Advertising is not going to change that.”

Foreign Service officers are expected to be consulted in targeted countries, and feedback will be collected at embassies and missions across the world. The government is also considering issuing another contract for public opinion research on the campaign.

The $24-million pricetag makes it the costliest advertising campaign NRCan has undertaken in recent years. The department spent just $5.25 million in advertising buys in 2011-2012.

The new advertisements are expected to be rolled out in at least one international jurisdiction by January 2014, with the full campaign in place by April 2014.

– With a file from Jason Fekete, Postmedia News.

New report blows holes in all arguments

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

OTTAWA — The chief of Communications Security Establishment Canada, the agency behind alleged industrial espionage against Brazil, insists all of its activities are legal, as details emerged Wednesday that CSEC had participated in private meetings between Canadian security agencies and energy companies.

Canadian Energy corporations acknowledged Wednesday they do, indeed, meet with security officials from CSEC and other departments, but said these are only to identify security threats and find ways to develop counter-measures to protect their operations.

Citing documents obtained under access to information laws, The Guardian newspaper in London reports federal government ministries, spy agencies — including CSEC — the RCMP and representatives from several energy companies, who were granted high-level security clearance, have met twice a year since 2005.

The federal meetings with energy industry officials were to discuss “threats” to energy infrastructure and “challenges to energy projects from environmental groups,” as well as “cyber-security initiatives and “economic and corporate espionage.”

The heavily redacted documents do not indicate that any international spying intelligence was shared by CSEC officials at the “off the record” meetings, according to the newspaper.

The most recent meeting of officials was in May 2013 to discuss “security of energy resources development.” The meeting included meals sponsored by Canadian pipeline company Enbridge, The Guardian reports.

CSEC chief John Forster, speaking Wednesday at a government technology conference in Ottawa, said “everything (CSEC) does in terms of its foreign intelligence mandate follows Canadian law,” and that it does not target Canadians at home or abroad.

Earlier this week, Brazil’s Globo Television — based on documents leaked by former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden — said CSEC targeted the metadata of phone calls and emails to and from the Brazilian ministry of mines and energy.

Metadata is information that can identify whom individuals are contacting, when and from where, in an effort to discover patterns of communication, but does not include the content of those communications.

The report infuriated the Brazilian government, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he is “very concerned” about it.

Forster acknowledged Canadian security agencies meet with the Canadian private sector on cyber-security trends and help protect what the government deems critical infrastructure.

CSEC has its own cyber-threat evaluation centre, which then shares information with government departments such as Public Safety Canada. That information is shared with the private sector to protect critical infrastructure, he said.

Forster said CSEC, which collects signals intelligence from phone calls and emails, leverages information from the “Five Eyes” partnership of intelligence agencies from Canada, the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.

The agency also works with industry to make communications networks more secure for when they are considered for government use, he added.

“We actively share information on evolving cyber-threats and tap into that vast pool of knowledge and then help make it available to you,” he said.

Officials from the energy and utilities industry meet fairly regularly with federal agencies and departments to discuss cyber-security and critical infrastructure such as pipelines.

A spokesman for Enbridge said the company and others in the energy and utilities sector, at the request of Natural Resources Canada, typically pay for a portion of receptions, meals and coffee breaks associated with security briefings provided to industry officials.

The latest meeting this year was on May 23 at Canadian Security Intelligence Service headquarters in Ottawa, although Enbridge officials were unable to attend.

“The purpose of the briefings is to provide a timely and relevant summary of current security issues that may have an impact on Canada’s critical infrastructure,” said Enbridge spokesman Graham White.

“The information discussed is intended to make the energy and utilities industries aware of potential security threats and enable industry to make informed decisions regarding the implementation of appropriate security threat mitigation countermeasures, in an effort to protect critical Canadian energy and utility operations.”

The Prime Minister’s Office directed media calls on Wednesday to Public Safety Canada, which said federal security agencies began meeting with Canadian companies following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

“We do not comment on operational matters of national security. However, it is standard practice for security agencies to discuss issues with Canadian industry in order to protect lives and sensitive infrastructure from terrorism and other threats,” Public Safety spokesman Jean Paul Duval said in an email.

Along with its role as one of Canada’s spy agencies, CSEC is responsible for protecting government information systems from cyber-threats.

Speaking about the Brazilian reports, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said “the evidence is quite clear” that CSEC is complicit in industrial espionage.

“It’s totally unacceptable,” Mulcair told reporters Wednesday. “We’re talking about the type of behaviour that we reproach other countries, often countries that have no rule of law.”

Canada’s auditor general, in his fall 2012 report, highlighted how federal departments lost track of $980 million in approved spending that was meant for cyber-security over the previous decade.  Also, there were not any benchmarks to determine whether the money spent was having its intended effect.

A section of the auditor general’s chapter on cyber-security was on “partnering to protect critical infrastructure,” and explains how federal departments and agencies work with the private sector to protect operations from cyber-threats.

“Significant numbers of stakeholders are involved. Federal government departments, provinces, territories, the private sector and international partners all need to agree on how to protect Canada’s critical infrastructure,” the report noted.

“We found that the energy and utilities sector network, managed through Natural Resources Canada, meets regularly and has active participation from all stakeholders.”

[email protected]

Twitter.com/jasonfekete

An Alberta judge has certified to go forward a $10-million nationwide class-action lawsuit against the Alberta meat packer at the centre of a massive beef recall after a 2012 E. coli outbreak.

Court of Queen’s Bench Associate Chief Justice John Rooke certified the class action in a hearing that concluded Tuesday. The decision means those who are suing the company can do so as a group instead of bringing individual cases to court.

Class counsel Rick Mallett said the action has more than 200 plaintiffs from across Canada and expects that number to rise.

“As more Canadians become aware that the class action is certified, more will come forward,” Mallett said outside court. “It’s difficult for an individual to go up against a corporate entity.”

Soon, public notifications and calls for more plaintiffs will appear in media across Canada.

The class action will include those who believe XL Foods owes them a refund for tainted meat and those who were made ill and seek financial compensation. Individual financial claims haven’t yet been determined.

“We’re still working on determining the appropriate levels of compensation,” Mallett said.

Mallett doesn’t expect the suit to reach the final stage in court until 2015.

The class-action suit will proceed with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency as a third-party defendant that could be held responsible for part of any financial settlement potentially ordered by the courts.

While XL Foods denies any responsibility for the outbreak that sickened at least 18 people, the company has argued any possible liability should at least be shared with the CFIA.

XL Foods claims its operational standards met CFIA guidelines, and argued that if the meat packer is found liable, then “such standards were inadequate.” Any XL products that may have posed harm to the public were negligently inspected by the CFIA and distributed with its approval, according to the company.

Even if XL Foods is found to have financial responsibility, Mallett said, that doesn’t necessarily mean the CFIA will as well.

The CFIA did not return calls for comment Tuesday.

The class-action suit states that questionable meat was processed at the XL Foods facility in Brooks in late August and early September 2012.

The packing plant was closed for weeks after the outbreak and the resulting loss of 35 per cent of Canada’s beef processing capacity cost ranchers an estimated $16 million to $27 million.

In July, an independent panel concluded that the “relaxed attitude” of CFIA inspectors and XL Foods officials led to the outbreak.

The report found it was likely clogged nozzles on a carcass pasteurizer that contaminated meat, but that XL and the CFIA failed to spot the rise in positive E. coli tests before an estimated 4,000 tonnes of possibly tainted meat was shipped across the continent.

The Nilsson Brothers Group bought the Brooks plant in March 2009 from Tyson Foods Inc. The plant was sold to JBS Canada earlier this year.

On Tuesday, Nilsson Brothers, named in the suit alongside XL Foods, did not return a call for comment.

Statements of claim and defence contain allegations not proven in court.

[email protected]