A small town in Ontario, Canada will be receiving $28,200 from energy company TransCanada Corp. in exchange for not commenting on the company’s proposed Energy East tar sands pipeline project, according to an agreement attached to the town council’s meeting agenda on June 23.

Under the terms of deal, the town of Mattawa will “not publicly comment on TransCanada’s operations or business projects” for five years. In exchange for that silence, TransCanada will give Mattawa $28,200, which will ultimately go towards buying a rescue truck for the town.

“This is a gag order,” Andrea Harden-Donahue, a campaigner for energy and climate issues with the Council of Canadians, told Bloomberg News. “These sorts of dirty tricks impede public debate on Energy East, a pipeline that comes with significant risks for communities along the route.”

The terms of the agreement did not specifically mention the controversial Energy East pipeline, which would carry more than a million barrels of tar sands crude oil across Canada each day.

However, the deal is being widely seen as a way for the company to avoid obstacles that may get in the way of the pipeline’s approval — especially considering the obstacles that have long plagued the approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline in the United States.

The Energy East pipeline, though, is bigger than Keystone XL — in fact, it’s the most expensive pipeline project TransCanada has ever proposed. If approved, Energy East would carry about 1.1 million barrels of tar sands crude across Canada each day. That’s more than Keystone XL, which would carry 830,000 barrels per day from Canada down to refineries in Texas.

Despite the company’s apparent attempt to avoid obstacles, the Energy East pipeline proposal has already gotten some push-back in Canada. A February report from the Pembina Institute, for example, found Energy East would have an even greater impact on the climate than Keystone XL, with the potential to generate 30 to 32 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year.

That’s the equivalent of adding more than seven million cars to the roads, and more than the 22 million metric tons that the think tank predicts Keystone XL will produce.

Still, representatives from TransCanada insist that the agreement with Mattawa was not intended to avoid or impede public discourse.

“The language in the agreement was designed to prevent municipalities from feeling obligated to make public comments on our behalf about projects that did not impact them and about which they had no experience or knowledge,” TransCanada spokesman Davis Sheremata told Bloomberg. “We are looking at amending our contract language to ensure communities know they and their staff retain the full right to participate in an open and free dialogue about our projects.”

Representatives from Mattawa’s town government have not yet publicly commented on the decision.

As of now, the process for approving the Energy East pipeline is still in its early stages, with TransCanada filing its project description for the pipeline with the National Energy Board in early March. About two-thirds of the Energy East pipeline infrastructure already exists, meaning a major part of the project will be converting that existing line — which currently carries natural gas — into a tar sands crude oil pipeline.

Tar sands oil is controversial because of its unique, thick, gooey makeup. Because of this quality, producers must use what is called “non-conventional” methods of getting the oil out of the ground. Those methods are more carbon-intensive, meaning they emit more greenhouse gases.

Tar sands production also causes a great deal of physical pollution. In Alberta, where the sands are mined, federal scientists have found that the area’s deposits are now surrounded by a nearly 7,500-square-mile ring of mercury.

*

Meanwhile, as reported by Renee Lewis for Al Jazeera America, Canada's tar sands are now being officially linked to rising cancer rates in First Nations communities:

Canada’s tar sands development, in the Alberta province, has been linked to environmental contaminants in wildlife and increasing incidences of cancer in indigenous communities, a new report released this week said.

“This report confirms what we have always suspected about the association between environmental contaminants from [tar] sands production upstream and cancer and other serious illnesses in our community,” Mikisew Cree First Nation (MCFN) Chief Steve Courtoreille said in a press release Monday. “We are greatly alarmed and demand further research and studies are done to expand on the findings of this report.”

Tar sands oil, or bitumen, has been pegged by critics as among the dirtiest fuels on earth. The substance is as thick as peanut butter and must be diluted with toxic chemicals in order to be transported through pipelines.

Elevated levels of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, selenium and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were found in a variety of animals that indigenous groups depend on for food — such as moose, muskrats, ducks, beavers and fish, according to the report. Indigenous populations are especially vulnerable to these impacts because of the close link between their livelihoods and the environment.

People in First Nations communities have responded to what they believe is the increasing presence of toxins in traditional food sources by resorting to store-bought alternatives — a change which has negatively affected their health, the report said.

Alberta’s Athabasca tar sands represents the largest reservoir of tar sands in the world that is suitable for large-scale surface mining — and is a major boon to the Canadian economy. But some First Nations communities and environmentalists say they are concerned about toxic chemicals that could hurt their health and the environment that many indigenous groups still depend on.

Further complicating the matter, critics have said regulators responsible for ensuring the safety of oil sands development are too closely tied with the industry.

The study, conducted by University of Manitoba and University of Saskatchewan researchers and First Nations in Alberta, is the first of its kind to draw an association between tar sands and declines in community health in Fort Chipewyan, Alberta.

A January survey had suggested that Alberta residents’ illnesses may be linked to the development but noted that most area doctors were afraid to speak out about any such connection.

Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Chief Allan Adam criticized the government and tar sands industry for failing to conduct such a study in the past.

“It’s frustrating to be constantly filling the gaps in research and studies that should have already been done," Adam said. "This demonstrates the lack of respect by industry and government to effectively address First Nations’ concerns.”

Many participants in the study said they had already decided not to eat locally caught fish because of concerns over heavy metals, which the government has issued advisories on. Their increased consumption of store-bought foods means their diets include much higher amounts of fats, sugars and salts than is deemed healthy.

The report said that trend is expected to continue as tar sands development expands and the availability of safe-to-consume wildlife declines.

The indigenous people interviewed for the report said they were worried about the well-being of their community, and viewed themselves as less healthy than their parents. They cited neurological, respiratory, circulatory and gastrointestinal illnesses as increasing along with tar sands — also referred to as "oil sands" — production but said they were most worried about the escalating cancer crisis.

Of the 94 participants in the study, more than 20 percent had been diagnosed with some form of cancer. The risks increased with age and were most frequently found in women, the report said.

“For the first time, we showed that upstream development and environmental decline are affecting cancer occurrence,” the study said. “Thus cancer occurrence increased significantly with participant employment in oil sands and with increased consumption of traditional foods and locally caught fish.”

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers was not available for comment, but when similar concerns were raised in February, the organization said in a release that “Canada’s oil sands producers are deeply concerned about suggestions oil sands development is affecting people’s health, most specifically resident First Nations. Safety is our industry’s top priority and oil sands development must occur in a manner that keeps people safe, and benefits their overall quality of life.”

The report, "Environmental and Human Health Implications of Athabasca Oil Sands," was partially funded by Canada’s federal department of health, Health Canada, and was reviewed by federal scientists and other health and environmental agencies.

First Nations groups said they pushed for the report because they believe some provincial and federal health officials are masking the growing problem.

“One thing most striking … is that both province and federal government’s refuse to do anything about (the high rates of cancer). Even though the pressure is escalating,” Adam told the Vancouver Observer. “We are being brainwashed by the Conservative government that everything is O.K. It’s not.”

Originally published by Think Progress