Health inspectors say tainted beef at XL Foods exceeded 5% of production on some days (with video)

By Matthew McClure, Calgary Herald October 4, 2012 6:15 AM

CALGARY – Canada’s food inspection agency admitted Wednesday that, on some days in late August and early September, over five per cent of the beef produced at an Alberta plant was likely testing positive for a potentially fatal bacteria.

Under industry norms and voluntary U.S. guidelines, that level of contamination should have prompted XL Foods Inc. to divert every single kilogram of meat to cooking or a landfill.

But instead, possibly tainted fresh product — now part of the country’s biggest ever beef recall — was shipped to restaurants and grocery stores across the continent.

“There were days, perhaps, that were over five per cent,” said Richard Arsenault, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s director of meat inspections.

“When we have something like this, we know the answer to the question. We’re not going to pretend we got it right. We’re going to do everything we can to get it right moving forward.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection Service issued guidelines to packers south of the border in May to divert all product if five per cent of a day’s production tests positive for E. coli 157: H7 because it indicates tainted product is very likely to be slipping through undetected.

“A systemic breakdown of the slaughter dressing operation has occurred and has created an insanitary condition that’s applicable to all parts of the beef carcass,” the guideline said.

The document said almost two-thirds of the U.S. industry’s large players — including Cargill Inc., which operates a plant in High River — were already meeting that mark.

Asked if the agency would now impose mandatory testing and diversion rules on the meat packing industry, Arsenault deferred.

“I won’t predict that outcome until I can sit down and write and get the signatures, but we are certainly going to have the lessons applied across the board,” he said.

“If that means we will issue guidance or instructions, we are certainly not going to hesitate from doing that.”

Debate about the lack of any firm guidelines or standards in Canada for diverting potentially contaminated product dominated Wednesday’s question period and was the topic of an emergency debate.

“Is this the kind of self-regulation that the Conservatives think will actually protect Canadians or are we just waiting for the next disaster?” New Democrat Leader Thomas Mulcair asked.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper replied it was up to the CFIA, not politicians, to decide how the industry should be regulated.

The agency’s own timeline indicates the CFIA was unaware of the festering food crisis until Sept. 4, when U.S. officials alerted them they had intercepted a shipment of contaminated beef trim at a Montana border crossing and Canadian inspectors found a tainted lot at an unidentified Calgary facility.

Still, inspectors would wait two days to formally ask XL to see the test results that would reveal the problem and four more for them to be provided by the company.

By the time the data were finally supplied, at least five people had fallen ill after eating steak at an Edmonton barbecue that was tainted with bacteria that’s since been genetically linked to the Brooks facility.

XL Foods officials could not be reached for comment Wednesday, but CFIA president George Da Pont said there were delays by the company in providing the results, something proposed legislation would address.

“We have limited authority to compel immediate documentation,” Da Pont said.

“There’s a provision in that (Safe Food for Canadians Act) to authorize us to do that.”

In the wake of a second set of positive tests at the Sweetgrass, Mont., border crossing on Sept. 12 that prompted a U.S. ban on XL product, the CFIA launched an in-depth review that would find the company wasn’t always following its stated “bracketing” protocol of diverting each lot or carcass before and after one that tested positive.

“There were a few instances that we could document where they did not divert either the one before or the one after,” Da Pont said.

The CFIA has stated it acted swiftly in identifying problems during the on-site review and issuing seven corrective orders to the company.

But a 2005 audit of the plant by U.S. officials indicates that at least one of those problems — considerable dripping condensation above the trim line — was pinpointed at least seven years ago, along with CFIA’s lackadaisical attitude about maintenance issues.

“The only recorded incident of condensation . . . had no preventive measures and the only corrective action recorded was that no product was involved,” the Food Safety Inspection Service auditor noted.

“Most other non-compliances had the same types of incomplete descriptions.”

While Da Pont dismissed the condensation problem as unlikely to cause meat contamination, Arsenault appeared to differ in his view.

“Condensation can be an issue if it’s not managed properly,” he said.

“Where you may have problems is if your environment can’t chill down fast enough, if the humidity allows for that bacteria to grow.”

CFIA records show that a dozen lots of contaminated beef also eluded detection by the Brooks plant’s testing program in 2010 and 2011, and were only caught later by inspectors at an XL operation in Calgary that was processing carcasses.

“I think it says that something got out and that our follow up surveillance system caught it as it’s designed to do,” Da Pont said.

While he’s been absent from the House of Commons all week, Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz visited the Brooks facility Wednesday and spoke to reporters in Calgary afterward.

Ritz said the plant will resume operations only after the CFIA has confirmed to him in writing that public health will not be at risk.

“While we understand that ranchers, farmers and industry need a strong processing sector, we all agree that the success of the industry must be founded on food safety,” Ritz said.

“Canadian consumers are and will continue to be our first priority.”

Arsenault said seven corrective-action requests have been issued to the company, but to date none of them have been completely satisfied.

The agency suspended the operating licence of the country’s second-largest beef slaughter and processing facility last Thursday, and Arsenault said XL won’t be allowed to resume operations until all the deficiencies have been corrected

More than 1,500 items and an estimated 1.4 million kilograms of meat have now been recalled from grocery chains across the country and in 40 states south of the border.

Alberta’s health authority is investigating nine cases of E.coli poisoning that either are or could be linked to tainted meat from the XL plant. In Saskatchewan, public health officials have said there are 13 patients who have fallen ill, including three whose food histories indicate they ate product that has since been recalled.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

Original source article: Health inspectors say tainted beef at XL Foods exceeded 5% of production on some days (with video)

Enbridge says Northern Gateway pipeline ‘highly strategic’ for Canada

By The Canadian Press, Calgary Herald October 3, 2012

TORONTO – Enbridge’s controversial Northern Gateway project could help boost the price Canadian oil producers see by opening up access to the Asian markets, Enbridge chief executive Al Monaco said Wednesday.

Monaco said that without access to the West Coast, Canadian producers will face a further discounting in oil prices compared with international benchmarks caused by a supply glut at a key storage hub in Cushing, Okla.

The glut has caused oil priced at Cushing — the WTI benchmark — to trade at a discount to other international benchmarks.

“I don’t think that is a tenable situation in the longer term,” he said.

Monaco called the $6-billion pipeline project, which faces significant opposition from groups concerned about possible spills from the pipeline, or from a tanker on the West Coast, a strategic project for the country.

“The bottom line on Gateway I think is this: It is a highly strategic project to Canada and there is general agreement that accessing the Asian market is in our interest,” he told an investor conference Wednesday.

“As a resource driven economy, there’s no question that Canada needs access to tidewater and the project is going to generate billions in terms of spinoffs, thousands of jobs and benefits to communities.”

In addition to the Enbridge project, Kinder Morgan has proposed its own $4.1-billion Trans Mountain project that would expand an existing pipeline from Alberta to the Vancouver area.

A joint review panel has been holding public hearings on the Northern Gateway project this year and is expected to report by the end of next year.

B.C. Premier Christy Clark has also set out five conditions before her government will back the project, including provisions for aboriginal consultation and the province receiving a “fair share” of the economic benefits.

Northern Gateway would carry roughly 525,000 barrels of bitumen a day from Alberta’s oilsands producers to Kitimat, B.C., where it would be loaded on tankers headed for Asian markets.

Alberta faces water shortages without stronger laws, report warns

By Karen Kleiss, Edmonton Journal October 3, 2012

EDMONTON – The provincial government must pass water laws that put people and rivers first, or else risk water shortages, huge public costs and environmental degradation, a new report says.

One week after the Redford government announced provincewide consultations on the future of water management in Alberta, the watershed protection group Water Matters released an 18-page report urging the province to prioritize long-term protection of river health.

The groups points to policies adopted in Oregon, which promote conservation while respecting the rights of senior water licence holders.

“Alberta needs laws and policies that clearly lay out not only the government’s social and economic goals, but also the government’s responsibilities and obligations to protect river health,” the report says.

Author Bill Donahue of Water Matters says that “without rivers that are healthy, everything else falls apart.

“Alberta has really laid the foundation for pretty risky scenarios that could ultimately result in huge public costs,” Donahue said, noting the Australian government introduced policies similar to those in Alberta and ended up budgeting $8.9 billion to buy back water from licence holders to keep rivers flowing during a severe drought.

“If we wait until one of these really bad droughts hits Alberta, then all bets are off the table,” he said.

Henning Bjornlund is the Canada Research Chair in Water Policy and Management at the University of Lethbridge. He agreed with Donahue and said “the real problem is that we have overcommitted the water” in some Alberta water basins.

“The fear is that if you really start to use all of what you’re entitled to use, then we would have a real problem,” Bjornlund said.

“That’s why it is important to do something now. Because every time we see a new development, or processor, or subdivision, that water is being used. When someone is already depending on water, then it is significantly more difficult, costly and politically volatile to do something about it.”

The freedom to transfer water rights was first introduced in 1999, when the province passed the Water Act. The market didn’t heat up until 2006, after the province stopped granting new licences for the South Saskatchewan River Basin, and people who needed water were forced to start buying water rights from existing licence holders.

Since 2003, roughly 80 water licences have been transferred, Environment and Sustainable Resource Development spokesman Wayne Wood said.

During the Progressive Conservative leadership race in 2011, Premier Alison Redford said the government has been “dancing around the (water management) issue for six years” and has implemented a “piecemeal” approach.

She said at the time she is open to using water markets where necessary and that she would set up an expert panel to spell out the options.

“Albertans need to have policy options put before them,” Redford said. “That is going to take some intense, sophisticated discussion.”

Public consultations on the future of water management in Alberta are slated to begin in the fall of 2012 or the spring of 2013.

[email protected]

twitter.com/ablegreporter

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

XL Foods hid poor quality control: lawsuit

By Ryan Cormier and Brent Wittmeier, Edmonton Journal October 3, 2012

EDMONTON – A class-action lawsuit filed against XL Foods by a man who contracted E. coli claims the company concealed knowledge of poor quality control at its Brooks plant to maintain profit and avoid negative publicity.

Edmontonian Matthew Harrison, 30, claims that XL Food steaks he consumed Sept. 5 made him “extremely ill” with E. coli and led to abdominal cramping, vomiting, headache and fever. He was hospitalized for treatment, his lawsuit states.

“Somebody needs to be held accountable for this,” Harrison said at a Wednesday news conference. “The meat should have never left the plant. Obviously the checks and balances aren’t in order.”

The addition to the physical illness, Harrison claims he suffered “mental distress, emotional trauma and fear for his health.”

XL Foods had “negligent quality control, monitoring, processing, storage, distribution and sale of certain beef products,” the lawsuit alleges.

It also claims XL Foods breached the Fair Trading Act by misleading customers who believed they were buying safe food products.

Harrison’s lawyer Richard Mallett said his company, James H. Brown and Associates, has got “dozens” of calls from as far away as Ontario since word of the lawsuit hit the media Tuesday afternoon.

“As the news gets out, people start to realize, ‘hey, I was really sick,’” Mallett said. “They’re talking to their doctors and then giving us a call.”

Harrison alleges the company was negligent because it failed to test beef products properly, failed to ensure and follow proper quality control, failed to hire enough food safety experts, failed to properly train staff and failed “to recall all of its tainted beef immediately up learning that people were becoming ill after ingesting them.”

The lawsuit alleges XL Foods knew of its poor quality control and purposely withheld that knowledge from the public for its own financial self-interest and reputation.

The lawsuit hasn’t named Costco, where Harrison purchased the grilling steaks linked to E. coli, or the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, although Mallett said additional parties could be named defendants at a later point.

Statements of claim contain allegations not proven in court.

The lawsuit also says E. coli was first detected at an XL Foods plant in Brooks Sept. 4., but the company claimed there was no link between E. coli cases and its beef as late as Sept. 26, after beef recalls were done.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency temporarily shut the Brooks plant Sept. 28

The lawsuit, which is the beginning of an attempt to build a class-action suit, does not name a financial figure. Other claimants could join the lawsuit in the future, although a judge will have to certify the lawsuit as a class-action before it can proceed. Mallett said there may be a framework for different effects suffered by claimants.

A class-action lawsuit is launched on behalf of an undetermined number of people who may otherwise launch individual suits that are difficult to prosecute. Lawyers will have to advertise for any claimants who believe they are entitled to a portion of any award.

[email protected]

Edmontonian Matthew Harrison’s lawsuit against XL Foods

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Simons: Glacial response of federal authorities to contaminated meat put public health at risk

By Paula Simons, Edmonton Journal September 28, 2012

EDMONTON – On Sept. 3, an American health inspector discovered beef slaughtered and packaged at the XL Lakeside packing plant in Brooks, Alberta, and shipped south of the border for sale was infected with unusually high levels of E. coli.The United States Food Safety and Inspection Service alerted its Canadian counterparts.

On Sept. 12, the Americans found more contamination in Lakeside beef. The next day, they decertified the Lakeside plant and blocked its exports to the U.S.

Not until Sept. 16, though, did the Canadian Food Inspection Agency finally issue a low-key public alert on this side of the border, warning Canadians not to eat, sell, or serve various ground beef products produced at Lakeside.

It issued no mandatory recall, but said XL had agreed to a voluntary one.

By that time, three Albertans had already been hospitalized for E. coli poisoning. Another two were seriously ill. Four cases were linked to steaks that came from the Brooks plant.

Yet the Lakeside plant went right on processing Alberta beef, for markets across the United States and Canada. XL, and its parent company, Edmonton-based Nillson Brothers, went on assuring consumers that its beef was safe.

Late Thursday, more than three weeks after American authorities first sounded the alarm, the CFIA took long-overdue, decisive action.

It suspended XL’s licence, citing the company for failing to correct deficiencies in its meat-handling.

But the damage to consumer confidence, and to the international reputation of Alberta’s prize beef, has already been done.

The American beef recall has spread to 30 states, and to premium cuts including roasts and steaks.

Friday morning, the CFIA expanded Canada’s voluntary recall to include all unbranded ground beef available for sale between Aug. 24 and Sept. 25, including that sold at local meat markets and gourmet butcher shops. Late Friday afternoon, the agency confirmed to the Journal that its recall now includes steaks and roasts.

Americans closed their borders to Brooks beef on Sept. 13.

Canadians, however, were allowed to go right on eating it.

Not only has the glacial response of federal authorities put public health at risk, their failure to warn the public and to act swiftly to stem the flow of potentially contaminated meat has dealt a blow to the integrity of Alberta beef, and to an industry that’s only just struggled back from the economic devastation caused by bovine spongiform encephalopathy: mad cow disease.

Did we learn nothing from the BSE crisis? Nothing makes consumers more suspicious, more wary, more paranoid, than any suggestion or hint of a cover up.

For weeks, CFIA officials erred on the side of caution and conservatism, quietly, painstakingly tracing the source of the contamination. But their caution seems calculated to protect the company, not Canadian consumers. That strategy has backfired spectacularly.

Now, Alberta consumers truly can’t know what beef, if any, is safe to eat.

Now, the Americans, who only fully reopened their borders to Alberta beef in 2007, have a fresh and legitimate reason to wonder if our meat is safe. We’ve handed perfect ammunition to American protectionist lobby groups like R-CALF, to start agitating for more export regulation.

Short-term, Alberta cattle producers face the prospect of significantly lower prices — since XL processes almost half of all Alberta’s production.Indeed, the XL shutdown demonstrates how vulnerable our beef supply chain is. Post-BSE, corporate concentration has left us almost entirely dependent on just two huge packing plants.

The long-term damage is harder to calculate.

Alberta’s beef is Alberta’s pride. This is a province where people sport “I love Alberta beef” buttons and bumper-stickers without irony. We all have a stake in Alberta beef. If we can’t restore public confidence in the brand, and quickly, we stand to lose more than just a few thousand pounds of raw meat.

Through all this, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development has remained strangely quiet, insisting this was a limited problem at one federally regulated plant, and a federal responsibility.

In a Friday press conference, Agriculture Minister Verlyn Olson, far from chastising the CFIA, defended Ottawa’s handling of the issue and stressed he didn’t want to see over-regulation.

Yet while the province isn’t responsible for inspecting the XL plant, it is responsible for protecting the health of Alberta’s beef industry, and the health of Albertans. Instead of downplaying this debacle, the Redford government needs to show leadership. The era of shoot, shovel, and shut-up is over. Albertans deserve to know exactly what went wrong — and how to prevent it from happening again.

[email protected]

Twitter.com/EJPaulaSimons

Facebook.com/EJPaulaSimons

To read Paula’s blog, go to edmontonjournal.com/Paulatics

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Enbridge rejects suggestion North Gateway pipeline not needed until 2020

By Sheila Pratt, Edmonton Journal September 28, 2012

EDMONTON – Enbridge Inc. rejects a report that concludes there is enough pipeline capacity to handle increased oilsand production until 2020, a federal hearing heard Friday.

In the final day of hearings in Edmonton into the proposed $6-billion Northern Gateway project, Enbridge lawyer Jack Nufeld squared off with Thomas Gunton, former deputy minister in the B.C. government and now director of resource and environmental planning at University of British Columbia.

Gunton concluded in his report for the Haisla Nation that the project won’t be needed until 2020 because of other major pipeline projects already in the works, including Enbridge’s Alberta Clipper that will take an additional 350,000 — and up to to 800,000 — barrels per day to the U.S.

Building Northern Gateway in the next couple of years to carry 525,000 barrels of bitumen to the West Coast for shipment to Asia would create excess pipeline capacity for exports that is costly to the shippers who use the pipeline and is not in the public interest, said Gunton.

Pipelines involve “very high fixed costs” and the cost to shippers would be high if the line was not fully utilized. That in turn could affect profits and revenues to governments, he said.

“So there is a concern we don’t overbuild,” said Gunton, who noted that Enbridge voiced the same concerns about the high costs — $348 million — of overcapacity at public hearings into the proposed Keystone pipeline from Canada to the U.S. gulf coast.

Nufeld said no oil company looking to use Northern Gateway has come to the panel with concerns about excess pipeline capacity.

Also, any potential cost from over- building has to be balanced with benefits that come from opening new markets, he said. That includes billions of dollars for oil producers from increased oil prices and revenues for governments over the 30 year life of the project.

Nufeld also noted that the growing market for bitumen is in Asia rather than the U.S, where demand for heavy crude will decline, according to forecasts from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

For that reason, Northern Gateway is needed to open new markets and avoid a slowdown of expansion in the oilsands and to ensure there no shut- in bitumen, the panel heard.

Nufeld also noted that the National Energy Board recognizes the importance of competition among pipeline companies in considering the public interest aspect of the Northern Gateway.

Gunton also said he has “strong reservations”about the company’s cost- benefit analysis which is based on a two-to three dollar price increase on a barrel of oil sent to Asia until 2048.

“You should have strong reservations about that forecast over a long period of time,’ he told the Joint Review Panel, consisting of the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

In response to questions, Gunton told the panel he personally supports plans for a liquid natural gas terminal in Kitimat, to be constructed about 2.5 kilometres from the proposed terminus of the Northern Gateway pipeline and the proposed marine terminal for oil tankers.

The Haisla Nation supports the LNG terminal and the pipeline from northeast B.C. but it is opposed to the Northern Gateway fearing a spill of bitumen on the fragile coast would be too damaging.

The pipeline hearings resume in Prince George, B.C. in October and move to Prince Rupert in late November.

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Some mushrooms recalled in Alberta, B.C. over listeria

Edmonton Journal September 28, 2012

EDMONTON – The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is warning consumers not to eat certain types of mushrooms sold in Alberta and British Columbia due to possible contamination with listeria monocytogenes.There have been no associated illnesses reported, but Champ’s brand sliced crimini mushrooms, specifically sold in 200-, 227- and 454-gram packages, should not be eaten. The packages bear the UPC codes 6 78286 99933 4, 6 78286 88877 5 and 6 78286 88881 2.

Food contaminated with listeria monocytogenes may not look or smell spoiled, but consuming it can cause listeriosis, a food-borne illness that can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and nausea.

Pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Infected pregnant women may experience only a mild, flu-like illness, however, infections during pregnancy can lead to premature delivery, infection of the newborn or even stillbirth.

The manufacturer, Champ’s Mushrooms of Aldergrove, B.C., is voluntarily recalling the products.

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Update Re: Heartland Appeal

The Heartland Appeal (Appeal of the first Bill 50 Transmission Line) is quickly approaching and this email is intended to remind you of the date, and to give you some details.  The Hearing will be heard, October 12, 2012, at the Alberta Court of Appeal,  Calgary  (TransCanada Pipelines Tower 2600).  More location details below.

The Heartland Appeal (Shaw, Stuart, et al v. Alberta Utilities Commission, et al.) will be the second hearing of the day, and considering that the Court of Appeal starts at 9:00 am, we estimate that the Heartland Hearing will begin later in the morning, or possibly early afternoon.  The exact times are not posted by the Court of Appeal, so you will have to plan accordingly.  If you plan on attending the Hearing, please recognize that it is a Courtroom, and quiet and good manners must be practised by all.  Please consider those directly involved in the hearing, and their need to reflect and gather their thoughts prior to the Hearing.  There will be opportunities to discuss the hearing and other matters after it is done.  The Hearing is expected to last for 2 3/4 hours.

We will inform everyone by email when a decision has been made by the Court of Appeal.  We do not expect that a decision will be rendered immediately, however, we will let you know as soon as we know.

Details

Shaw, Stuart, et al v. Alberta Utilities Commission, et al.

Calgary, October 12, 2012

Alberta Court of Appeal

TransCanada Pipelines Tower 2600

450-1st Street, S.W., Calgary

Courtroom 1, 26th Floor

Again, we want to extend a sincere “thank you” to all of you who have helped by giving us your support and your generous donations.  This Appeal could not have happened without you, and we are sincerely grateful that you stepped up to the plate to help all Albertans.  Our special thanks for the hard work, long hours and constant pursuit of justice by Lawyer Keith Wilson.  We all wish him the very best with the Appeal.

Colleen Boddez

Alberta Landowners Council

Alberta gets a ‘D’ in freedom of information audit

By Darcy Henton, Calgary Herald September 24, 2012 6:18 AM

EDMONTON — Alberta’s past two premiers have campaigned on bringing more transparency to government, but the province still earned a ‘D’ for its record of disclosure in the latest survey of how governments apply freedom of information legislation.

Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland were found to be the most transparent in a National Freedom of Information Audit released Monday by Newspapers Canada.

But in Alberta and several other provinces, as well as the federal government, openness is “just a slogan,” the report says.

“On paper it looks great — a right upheld coast to coast to peer into the dark corners of government filing cabinets and shine a light on the inner workings of our public institutions,” says the 69-page report.

“Actually getting into those filing cabinets can mean long waits, large portions of documents blacked out and creative interpretations of what seem to be straightforward access provisions.”

While Alberta earned a ‘B’ for its speed at responding to information requests, it earned a D along with Manitoba and Ontario for failing to disclose all information requested.

Quebec and New Brunswick fared even worse, receiving an ‘F’ for being the most secretive.

Alberta also was cited in the report for charging fees over $50 in 25 per cent of the information requests, second only to Ontario, which charged fees on nearly half of the requests for information.

The report found a request for briefing notes from the Alberta Solicitor General regarding the capacity of the province’s jails to be a futile exercise.

“(It) took 60 days to release records that were so severely severed as to have no useful information in them,” it stated.

Alberta also refused to release any briefing materials prepared for the premier regarding the new federal health-care funding formula.

Municipal governments in Calgary and Edmonton fared much better than the provincial government in the survey, prepared by University of King’s College assistant professor of journalism Fred Vallance-Jones.

Both received an ‘A’ for prompt processing of requests and a ‘B’ for completeness of disclosure.

However, the report notes the City of Calgary refused a request for information on the mayor’s most recent trip on the basis the information would be published online within 60 days, but only a summary of expenses, without receipts, was ever posted.

“Refusing requests for detailed records because summaries are posted online has the effect of making government more, not less, opaque, under the guise of being open and transparent,” the report states.

The City of Edmonton was singled out for an excessive charge to respond to an information request.

When asked for police reports on the use of Tasers dating back to the beginning of 2010, Edmonton wanted more than $10,000 for the full investigation reports of the incidents.

The Newspapers Canada audit involved sending 10 information requests to municipal governments, 16 requests to each provincial government and 55 requests to the federal government — a total of 410 requests to 11 federal departments, five departments in each province and 20 municipalities across Canada.

The federal government fared poorly in the survey, earning a ‘C’ for response time and a ‘D’ for fullness of disclosure. The survey found it denied in whole or part, or was overdue in its response, in 82 per cent of its information requests.“The federal government’s performance was again among the worst,” says the report. “Only half the requests were completed within the statutory 30-day deadline.”

The report said the federal government and many other governments, are “stuck in the 1970s” with their insistence on releasing paper rather than providing electronic copies, even when they are requested.

Alberta has faced criticism for many years for its secrecy. Former premier Ralph Klein, who brought in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in 1994, won an award for heading the most secretive government in Canada in 2005. He was presented the Code of Silence by the Canadian Association of Journalists after a privacy adjudicator determined his government deliberately withheld requested information about flights on government aircraft until two days after the 2004 provincial election.

Klein’s successor, Ed Stelmach, who promised more transparency and introduced a lobbyist registry as his first bill, was accused in the legislature by NDP Leader Brian Mason of heading “the most secretive and undemocratic government in Canada.”

Premier Alison Redford also campaigned on the transparency ticket, appointed an associate minister of accountability, transparency and transformation. She has announced a new policy requiring all MLAs and senior civil servants to disclose travel and hosting expenses online with accompanying receipts, but the policy doesn’t include their constituency office expenses and there are concerns the information will be released in a format that will make it difficult to analyze.

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

Landowner disputes pipeline application by Shell

By Colette Derworiz, Calgary Herald September 19, 2012

 A long-standing dispute between a southern Alberta landowner and Shell Canada could flare up again after the oil and gas company applied to build a pipeline near his home.

In the spring, Shell applied to the Energy Resources Conservation Board for a licence to construct a short production pipeline to tie a sour gas well into its existing system.

Mike Judd, who lives near the hamlet of Beaver Mines, has requested a public hearing on the merits of a pipeline in the area.

“Shell is trying to suggest that I don’t have standing,” he said. “I find that quite ridiculous.”

His lawyer, Shaun Fluker, filed a letter this week with the ERCB to object to the move.

“Mike is the closest resident to the sour gas facility,” he said. “His residence, among others, is surrounded by Shell sour gas wells and pipelines. They live inside a continual emergency response zone.

“It’s quite amazing that Shell Canada is taking the position that Mike Judd is not entitled to any due process before it proceeds with yet another pipeline.”

Shell spokesman Stephen Doolan said it’s up to the ERCB whether there’s a hearing.

“Issues raised by the community are important to Shell,” he said, noting the company does its best to consult with residents affected by an application.

Doolan said only one party has filed an objection to the proposed pipeline.

“The ERCB is reviewing this objection in relation to Shell’s application,” he said. “During its review, the ERCB will determine whether to hold a public hearing as a result of the objection.

“Shell respects the decisions made by the ERCB.”

Bob Curran, spokesman for the ERCB, said the decision will be made after reviewing all of the correspondence.

“We will assess the information we have received from both parties and then make a decision,” he said, noting public hearings aren’t held for every application.

But Judd, who has lived in the area for his entire life, said he’d like to raise some of his concerns — including the integrity of a pipeline that has had problems in the area, the degradation of habitat for the endangered species in the Castle wilderness area, and his own health and safety.

It’s not the first time Judd has sparred with Shell over its work in the area.

He also took the company to court in 2010 when the sour gas project was approved less than two kilometres from his home.

Judd and his lawyer argued the ERCB failed to properly consider the province’s dwindling grizzly bear population when it approved the project.

The bid was denied.

A judge ruled that the ERCB did not err when it refused to hear Judd’s evidence, suggesting he missed a deadline to file a report authored by a grizzly bear expert and he denied Shell an opportunity to rebut his claim that the den would be harmed.

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald