Our oil interests not well protected
By Robyn Allan And Gil McGowan, The Edmonton Journal, February 21, 2012
According to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, his recent trip to China was about advancing and protecting the "national interest."
But after taking a look at the likely outcomes of Harper's vision for trade with China - especially his goal of making it easier for China to gobble up an increasing share of bitumen from Alberta's oilsands - it's fair to ask, whose national interest is our prime minister really advancing: Canada's or China's?
While non-resident, foreign control of Canada's oil industry is not a new phenomenon, what's different this time is the role being played by the Chinese government. State-owned oil companies such as Sinopec, the Chinese National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC) and Petro China are not "free-market players" - they are owned by the Communist Party of China and are responsible for implementing Chinese national interests.
China has long recognized the importance of securing safe and affordable crude oil to feed the dragon that is the Chinese economy. That's why they and have invested nearly $20 billion in Canadian oil in the past few years.
The Chinese have not been shy about using their growing ownership clout to advance their national interests. In 2011, for example, Sinopec bought Conoco Phillips' share in Canada's largest oilsands producer, Syncrude, and quickly used its new seat on the company's board to veto moves toward increased Canadian-based upgrading.
More recently, the Chinese have turned their attention to securing control of the pipeline infrastructure that would take Canadian bitumen to refineries in China.
Perhaps you thought the Northern Gateway pipeline was solely a project of Canadian pipe-line company Enbridge Inc. Think again.
Enbridge offered a limited group of investors the right to equity ownership in the project in return for financing the National Energy Board regulatory approval process and predevelopment of the project. For $10 million each, these funding participants receive preferred access and toll rates as shippers on the pipeline.
Only six of the funding participants have identified themselves. This means there might be four others, or, perhaps some of the six participants hold more than one partnership right. The six companies are Sinopec, MEG Energy Corp., Nexen Inc., Cenovus Energy, Suncor Energy Marketing Inc., and Total E&P Canada.
With these funding partners, almost all roads lead to Chinese state control. Sinopec, which also owns a fleet of tanker ships, has direct participation and indirect links through its 50-per-cent joint venture partnership in the Northern Lights heavy crude project with Total E&P Canada. CNOOC owns 17 per cent of MEG and is a joint venture partner with Nexen in a number of ventures, including a 35-per-cent working interest in the Long Lake oilsands project. Three of the funding participants are joint venture partners in Syncrude - Sinopec at nine per cent, Suncor at 12 per cent and Nexen at seven per cent.
Canadians are being told by the oil industry and federal and provincial government leaders that the Northern Gateway pipeline and increasing Chinese involvement in the oilsands will be good for Canada because they will open new doors for demand and drive up prices of Canadian resources. But while higher oil prices may be good news for some producers, they will be harmful to Canadian consumers and Canadian businesses outside the energy sector. Increasing profits for a handful of energy companies will come at the expense of increased energy costs for everyone else.
Moreover, Enbridge documents filed with the National Energy Board confirm that, once the Northern Gateway pipeline is built, oil producers plan to restrict supply of conventional and heavy crude oil flowing to Ontario refineries. The pipeline will be used to redirect 20 per cent of the supply currently going to refineries in Ontario to refineries in northeast Asia. Reduced access to reasonably priced feedstock will threaten the economics of Canadian refineries and many will struggle to survive.
All of this raises serious questions about the Harper government's decision to champion a "rip-it-and-ship-it" export strategy over a value-added strategy for Canadian resources.
It's not a surprise, nor is it inappropriate, for the Chinese to look after Chinese national interests. That's why they want the Northern Gateway pipeline.
Nor is it inappropriate for the Americans to look after American national interests. That's why many Americans want the Keystone XL pipeline that would transport Alberta bitumen to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas.
But the resources in question are not owned by the Chinese or the Americans. They're not owned by oil companies. They're owned by the citizens of Canada.
Who, we ask, is looking after the Canadian interest?
Why do we always have to accept the role of junior partners in some other nation's energy security strategy?
In the case of China, why do we want to get in bed with a country with low environmental standards and even lower employment and human-rights standards?
The good news is there is an alternative. In-stead of looking for new markets in the Far East, Alberta's oil producers should look for markets in the Canadian east.
Eastern Canada relies on imports for most of the oil it consumes. Although all Western Canada's needs, and some of Ontario's needs, are met by domestic crude, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces are completely dependent upon unpredictable and volatile markets in the Middle East and declining production in Norway and Mexico - exactly the kind of vulnerabilities that the U.S. and China are desperately trying to protect against by locking in access to Alberta bitumen.
The government of Canada must stop allowing itself to be used by other countries as a tool to meet their energy security goals and, instead, implement a national energy security plan for Canadians.
By maintaining and enhancing upgrading and refining activities in Canada, with high environmental and labour standards, we can make sure that Canadians keep much more of the value created from resource development within the country. And by developing markets in Eastern Canada instead of Asia, we can ensure that Eastern Canada has stable and secure crude oil and petroleum product access, thereby insulating our economy from excessively high oil prices that are the undesirable fallout of impending international oil market turmoil.
Robyn Allan is an economist and former president and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Gil McGowan is president of the Alberta Federation of Labour.
© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal
B.C. energy minister slams local council over opposition to Enbridge pipeline
By Dirk Meissner, The Globe and Mail, February 16, 2012
B.C. Energy Minister Rich Coleman has criticized Terrace city council for its decision to oppose the $5.5-billion Northern Gateway oil pipeline.
Mr. Coleman said Wednesday he can't tell municipal politicians what to do, but he prefers local politicians to follow the B.C. government and hold off on taking a stand on the controversial project until the completion of federal environmental review hearings in 2013.
“We've said all along, the premier's said all along, we're going to wait for that [joint review panel] process. I think some of these other jurisdictions should do the same,” he said.
Mr. Coleman said he believes it's important to let the federal review process play itself out before deciding whether or not to support the Enbridge Inc., (TSX:ENB) Northern Gateway project.
More than 60 B.C. First Nations and aboriginal organizations have signed a declaration opposing the plan to build a 1,177-kilometre twin pipeline from Alberta to the northwest B.C. port of Kitimat, where huge oil tankers will ship oil to Asia and the United States.
The Union of B.C. Municipalities also voted against the oil pipeline at their meeting last fall. Terrace announced its opposition at a council meeting earlier this week.
“You've got to wait until you hear it all,” said Mr. Coleman. “This is an important project for Canada, everybody knows that, and through this process there could be tweaks and changes that would actually allay people's concerns that may be out there.”
Terrace councillors voted 5-2 Monday to oppose the pipeline, saying the project may be good for Ottawa and Alberta, but leaves Terrace, Kitimat and the surrounding communities with few benefits and most of the environmental risk.
The Terrace area's New Democrat MLA said Terrace council has shown leadership on a difficult issue and he expects other area councils to take similar action.
“It's essentially what people have been saying: We hold all the risk and Alberta gets all the benefits,” Skeena MLA Robin Austin said.
But so far, Terrace is on its own in the northwest, with councils in the neighbouring cities of Prince Rupert, Kitimat and Smithers deciding to hold off on taking a position on Northern Gateway until after the review process.
Former Prince George mayor Colin Kinsley has taken on the job of promoting the pipeline in the region.
Mr. Austin urged the B.C. Liberals to state their position on Northern Gateway, saying Alberta is actively lobbying to ensure its interests are fully represented in Ottawa and before the review hearings.
“It's absolutely incredible to think the government of Alberta is actually involved as an interveners, working in the interest of their citizens and our government is nowhere to be seen on this issue,” Mr. Austin said.
“I don't know what's going on with the B.C. Liberals,” he said. “It's time that they came out and took a position and defended what they believe are the interests of British Columbians.”
Terrace Mayor Dave Pernarowski, who says he personally doesn't support Northern Gateway, was one of two council members who voted against the motion to oppose the pipeline, arguing that Terrace should wait for the review process to conclude.
He said he now sees his job as working to ensure investors consider Terrace open for business, just not the oil pipeline business.
Terrace businessman Steve Smyth said the pipeline doesn't run through the city and there was no reason for council to publicly declare its opposition.
“It sends the entirely wrong message to the investment community,” he said.
Enbridge, which has been working to sign 10-per-cent equity stake agreements with the estimated 43 First Nations along the pipeline's Alberta-to-B.C. route, could not be reached for comment.
Enbridge officials say they have up to 10 equity agreements with B.C. First Nations, but so far, only two First Nations who have publicly declared deals, with one being rescinded and the second under review.
Enbridge says feds pushing “unrealistically fast” approvals for pipeline
By Mike De Souza, Postmedia News, February 15, 2012
OTTAWA — Enbridge, the company behind a controversial pipeline proposal to link the Alberta oilsands with the British Columbia coast, has complained federal departments were asking it for too much information and pushing the approval process at an "unrealistically fast" pace, says newly released briefing material from Environment Canada.
The internal records contrast recent statements made by federal cabinet ministers and the Alberta-based energy company about delays in the review process for the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline. If built, it would link the oilsands to the port of Kitimat so bitumen could be exported to Asia by tanker.
Paul Stanway, a spokesman for Enbridge, stressed in an interview Wednesday that the company raised these concerns early in the process, but that it was never proposing to slow down timelines for the project's approval.
While the company said that its discussions with the federal government were about its preference to delay detailed reports about its plans until after the project has received the green light from regulators, Environment Canada said Enbridge felt federal departments were "asking for more technical information and project design details" than the company was ready to provide at the time.
"The proponent has indicated that it is concerned that the Major Projects Management Office Project Agreement may be driving responsible authorities to issue project approvals within a time frame that is unrealistically fast, given the proponent's commercial plans in that it prefers to proceed through the regulatory process without detailed route plans," said Environment Canada in the briefing material that was released through access to information legislation. It was prepared for an October 29, 2010, meeting requested by Enbridge with the department's deputy minister, Paul Boothe, and two officials from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
The Major Projects Management Office was launched by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government in 2007 to improve co-ordination and efficiencies in the regulatory review process of major resource projects.
Stanway noted that the review panel has asked for some of the additional engineering information that Enbridge has provided and continues to produce.
"If the suggestion is that we think we'd like to slow down the regulatory the process . . . I can tell you that's absolutely not the case," Stanway said.
He estimated Enbridge is spending about $300 million to prepare its case for regulatory approval, but that it does not immediately want spend millions of dollars on such additional work as detailed route plans until the project has approval.
He said this is a normal part of a regulatory review.
"This is already a very expensive process," he said.
NDP MP Nathan Cullen, who represents a British Columbia riding that would be affected by the proposed pipeline, said the revelations raise doubts about the federal government's recent claims that Canada's regulatory process is too slow. Instead, he said, it demonstrates that the project, which would go through the Great Bear Rainforest, is a complex one that needs to be studied carefully.
"These are complicated things and if you want to get them right you have to take your time and know what you're talking about," said Cullen, who is also a candidate in the NDP leadership race. "You can't offer any comfort to Canadians if you don't have your actual plans in place and ask this panel or the public to give their opinion and approval."
The Environment Canada document also estimated Enbridge had offered about $8 million to local First Nations communities through 36 different agreements, as of August 2010, to help them research, while the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency had distributed about $2.38 million in funding to 38 groups.
But the document also noted that there were over 100 aboriginal groups that might have an interest in the project along the entire length of the pipeline, and that the funding was "significantly lower than requested," and could prevent some groups from fully participating in the project review.
Nation building: how the Enbridge pipeline issue unified Northern B.C.
By Carrie Saxifrage , Vancouver Observer, February 13, 2012
When I was in Prince Rupert last month, I asked the innkeeper at the Totem Lodge in Prince Rupert if she knew of any people in favour of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline that I could contact for an interview. The Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel can expect a unified response to the hearings that will be held on February 17 and 18 in Prince Rupert.
Jill Spyker gave me a long look, then a definitive “No.”
“No one at all?”
“Every one that I interact with in my daily life sees the short term benefit and the long term disaster,” Spyker said.
“I grew up here. I’m not willing to risk everything for 400 jobs. It’s just wrong.”
Many people think that northern BC has never been so unified, and they thank Enbridge for bringing their community together.
Prince Rupert residents Cam and Annie Thompson were equally definitive. Cam is an RCMP officer, and Annie home-schools their two young children.
“I heard of someone with property to sell who hopes property values will go up,” Annie said after some thought. “But that’s about it.”
Annie thought that the biggest change brought by the proposed pipeline is the way that it has brought communities together. Cam, speaking in his personal capacity, elaborated:
“It has made a tight coalition out of the First Nations and removed a lot of boundaries between First Nation and non-native communities. People are very unified against it.”
Allan Davidson, the Vancouver Regional Representative of the Haida Nation, agreed that the pipeline has unified First Nations. “We’ve had trade relations for thousands of years,” he said. “Now we’re starting to come back together to look at the same big picture.”
KC, maintenance man for a women’s shelter in Massett, saw the proposed pipeline unifying the Haida and non-native communities on Haida Gwaii. “Unification is a process that’s happening here in Hadia Gwaii. We’ve marched around town together at a demonstration we organized last spring. The Haida and everyone else all have a common interest in keeping our place healthy.”
Jen Rice, who sits on the Prince Rupert City Council, stated, “Individuals, commercial and sports fishers and First Nations along the northwest corridor are usually at odds over allocation of fish. But now everyone has checked their baggage at the door. Everyone risks losing wild salmon if the pipeline gets built.”
A stumbling economy
It’s not that people in the North don’t need jobs. They do.
Fishing, which has sustained northern populations since time immemorial, has steadily declined in recent decades. Arnold Nagy, a member of the Haida Nation who has lived his entire life in Prince Rupert, took me on a tour of seven closed down fish processing plants. Nagy states that processing jobs have moved to the south where non-union employees decrease operating costs.
First Nations members in particular are feeling the impact of fewer commercial fishing opportunities. The DFO’s move to area fishing licenses particularly hurt those First Nations fishermen who used to make a living along the entire coast. According to Nagy, many First Nations families lost licenses that had been passed down through the generations. People who live on reserves can’t take out a mortgage against their homes, so it’s hard to raise capital. Families that had fished for generations couldn’t make a living in their immediate area but couldn’t afford licenses in other areas. “People lost the one economic opportunity that they’ve always had,” Nagy said. “All they’ve ever known is the commercial fishing.”
The salmon stocks are less abundant as well. Todd White, a Haida Nation member and representative of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers’ Union Caw on Haida Gwaii, suspects DFO wants to actually wipe out the fishery. “If there’s no work left, no jobs, we have nothing left to protect,” he said. “They can do what they want.” Nagy has a similar impression. “Look at what the federal government is doing to DFO with all the cutbacks,” he said. “They’re making it more difficult to do what we haveto do.”
Jen Rice, Prince Rupert councillor, states the economic risk in stark terms: “If you disrupt commercial fishery so that people can’t maintain their boats, you are doing away with the coastal fishery. If First Nations can’t fish, you are contributing to the extinction of people because that is who they are.”
Annie Thompson of Prince Rupert noted, “The same issue of jobs came up in the 70s with a pipeline and it was an easy no. It’s harder now.”
But fishing is still a major economic player in the northern economy. Nagy estimates about 1000 jobs during salmon season at the Canadian Fishing Company processing plant where he works as a millwright. He estimates about 700 licenses for gillnetters and seiners to fish the northern waters, more for the trawlers. There are crab, urchin, shrimp fisheries and clam openings as well. People buy materials and supplies in the town. There are two fish processing plants in Massett, on Haida Gwaii. Tourism and steelhead fishing are other job generators that would be lost in the event of a spill.
“Myself as a tradesman working in the plant year round I make a pretty good living out the fishing industry,” Arnold Nagy said. “If there’s ever a spill, there’s nothing to do but go to the bank and say I’m bankrupt, how do you want to deal with this? Because there’s no way that I’m going to be able to pay the bills.”
Unbelievable jobs
Arnold Nagy attended Enbridge’s Coastal Advisory Board meetings in Terrace in which the company described long term jobs but offered three month apprenticeships. “I sat there and listened to all these promises of beautiful opportunities for the young people, but it didn’t add up. I told them they were giving false hope of an economic future that just isn’t going to be there.”
KC attended a very quiet meeting that Enbridge representatives held in Massett. His take was that peoples’ responses to the promise of clean up jobs in the event of an oil spill were so strong that they were unable to speak.
Nearly everyone I spoke with believes that the skilled jobs will be short term and go to pipeline specialists from Alberta, but it doesn’t matter much anyway. Debbie Landon, who signed up people on Haida Gwaii to testify in front of the Joint Review Panel, said a young Haida man asked how much money Enbridge was going to offer them. “I said, ‘what if it was a billion dollars?’ and his response was, ‘It wouldn’t be worth it, because all it takes is one spill.’”
The Enbridge website reflects the temporary nature of the employment it offers: about 3,500 construction jobs compared to 34 jobs in operational employment.
Oil spills: “Not 'if', but a matter of 'when'"
The united opposition to the proposed pipeline arises from the shared opinion that a spill is inevitable. “We’re trying to grow this idea that the fisheries have to be sustainable,” Annie Thompson said. “But a spill would wipe it out. It’s not a question of ‘if.’ It’s a matter of ‘when.’”
Allan Davidson of the Haida Nation said, “It might not happen in our generation. It could happen in our kids’ generation. But it will happen.”
People think the pipeline would doom the fisheries whether a spill of occurred at a rupture to the pipeline as in Michigan, or from a tanker running aground, as in Alaska. Arnie Nagy described it this way: “If you have an accident on the pipeline in those stretches where it goes over and under Skeena River tributaries, the oil will end up in the Skeena River and come all the way down here to Prince Rupert. Fish from the Nass and Fraser Rivers all migrate along the coast before they head out to the ocean to do their loop out there. Then they head back down along the Aleutians all the way down from Alaska back here again. They’ll all be affected by any oil that washes down the river to the ocean.”
Nagy continued, “It’s being sold as not a big deal, but if you’ve ever seen how the Skeena River flows sometimes, you have to ask how anyone could ever contain the bitumen and all of the other contaminants mixed in with it from coming down the river. There’s no way. Any spill along the pipeline is basically the end to our commercial fishery here.”
Gerald Amos of the Haisla First Nation said, “If a pipeline burst in the headwaters of the Kitimat River or any rivers where the pipeline will cross, there’s absolutely no way they could get to it, no way they could fly a helicopter in this weather up to that site. How are they going to stop the flow? They stopped cleaning up the one in Michigan during the winter and that’s flat, slow moving water compared to our area. Look out at that snowstorm right now. Up in the mountains, it’s socked in. There’s no way a human being can get in there in and survive. “
KC, of Haida Gwaii, described winter weather conditions at sea: “Extreme conditions get set up by the shallow waters and hurricane force winds we get for a week on end sometimes, 100 km/hour or better. The water gets shallower as you go north from Queen Charlotte Sound. That creates steep waves; they run straight up and down. Most boats don’t leave Haida Gwaii after the end of September or early October. That’s just always been the rule of thumb. After that, you take your chances because the gales and storms come furious. The storms come out of the south east and blow right up the Douglas Channel, which has a lot of corners to it. Remember that ferry we lost a few years ago? A computer can’t steer through those storm conditions. There’s no room to maneuver.”
April Churchill, Vice President of the Haida Nation, said, “The waters here are treacherous. People get stuck here all the time. The ferries don’t run, the planes turn back. If there were a spill, they wouldn’t be able to get the boats out for rescue or clean up. It would be a mess.”
Lessons from the Exxon Valdez oil spill
Nearly all the northerners I spoke with referred to the 1989 oil spill caused by the grounding of the Exxon Valdez in Alaska, the worst environmental disaster in history prior to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Immediate impacts were loss of tourism (over 26,000 jobs and over $2.4 billion in sales) and closure of the salmon, herring, crab, shrimp, rockfish and sablefish fisheries. Over 2,000 Native Alaskans and 13,000 other subsistence permit holders lost their source of food, a fact which causes financial and cultural hardship to this day. Cordova, a small fishing-dependent community, became reliant on Exxon’s money for its survival. The value of commercial fishing licenses plummeted. The impact of big settlement money on small communities took a social toll. Numerous studies have explored the devastating mental impacts of the spill on local residents.
Tourism hasn’t fully recovered, nor have ten of the species taken in commercial fisheries. Herring and salmon stocks never rebounded at all. Oil compromises the immune system of adult herring, even exposure to very low concentrations. This leads to viral disease. Salmon eggs absorb polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) even when they are present in undetectable amounts. PAHs kill the young fry. Even many years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the oil buried under the gravel gets carried to the streams with the ebb and flow of the tides and harms the salmon populations.
Immediate loss of wildlife after the spill was estimated to be about 250,000 sea birds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 harbour seals, 250 bald eagles and up to 22 orcas. Recent studies show that sea otters, who dig pits into the contaminated gravel in search of clams and other prey, are not recovering. Remaining contamination may be affecting the recovery of other species as well. The local pod of orcas has never rebounded and is expected to eventually die out. Surveys have found oil lingering over 450 miles away from the spill site.
According to the World Wildlife Fund, a spill the size of the Exxon Valdez disaster would likely prove equally devastating today because measures for spill prevention and safety and response and recovery have not substantially improved: “To date, no improvements have been made that significantly improve the effectiveness of methods, tools and equipment for containing or removing spilled oil from frigid, dangerous waters. Most oil response technology is tested in more temperate climates. Until it is fully deployed in the Arctic, nobody really knows whether or how it will operate in extreme weather conditions.”
Nor has there ever been a large spill of bitumen, which is much heavier and more tenacious than oil. The toxic condensate that makes bitumen viscous enough to flow may also impact marine wildlife.
April Churchill, Vice President of the Haida Nation, pointed out the failure to clean up the oil from the BC ferry that sank near Hartley Bay. “It’s still sitting there leaking , contaminating their food source. A 15% clean up of my house is not a clean house.”
Building a Salmon Nation
Cam Thompson, RCMP officer speaking in his personal capacity, finds offensive the Federal Government’s support for the pipeline. “I’ve lived in the North my whole life and I’ve never seen a more blatant example of how out of touch they are about what’s really happening here,” he said. “The comments out of Ottawa make you realize how dysfunctional this entire scenario is.”
In response to the Harper governments comments about “nation building” and “enemies of the state,” Arnold Nagy said, “All that they’ve been doing and saying is strengthening the resolve of people to stand up and let their opposition be known in an even louder voice. They unified the fight to protect our coast and it’s something to see. I’m really proud of it because there’s no racial barriers in it. The respect toward First Nations from non-natives when they’re on their traditional territories is something I’ve never seen before.”
Nagy continued, “If Harper wants to say I’m a radical you’re damn right I’m a radical, because I have something to protect. I have a future. The fisheries have provided a great living for me. I want my family and future generations of our family to be able to make a living off the same thing I did.”
Nathan Cullen, MP for the Skeena-Bulkley Valley and NDP leadership candidate, thinks the Federal Government helped unify the North with its tactics. “The Federal Government lost people’s confidence by calling everyone who opposes the pipeline a radical and by saying the pipeline must go ahead. They acted on the worst advice I’ve ever seen. People aren’t willing to sacrifice a way of life to a bully. The First Nations in particular have seen bullying before. If Harper wants to make this issue a referendum on his leadership, we welcome the fight.”
n February, 2,000 people peacefully marched the streets of Prince Rupert in opposition to the proposed Enbridge pipeline and in support of an economy based on clean and renewable resources. Jen Rice, Prince Rupert City Councillor, described it as follows:
“In my 10 years living in Rupert I don't rink I've seen anything like this. The rally was peaceful, inspiring and uplifting for our souls. There were ladies from the Senior Centre marching and young families -- A cross section of the population amongst our First Nations. There’s no way all of us are the fringe group we've been made out to be.”
Allan Davidson of the Haida Nation said, “We’re not getting much coverage in the media on the Haida Nation perspective. The Minister of Natural Resources point blank called people who are against the pipeline “radicals,” so I guess I’m a radical. But people really need to understand the reason why we’re opposed to it. We have a huge responsibility to the younger generation to protect our coast.”
Ottawa’s new anti-terrorism strategy lists eco-extremists as threats
By Shawn McCarthy , The Globe and Mail, February 11, 2012
After vowing to take on radical environmentalists determined to stop the Northern Gateway pipeline, the Harper government has released a new anti-terrorism strategy that targets eco-extremists as threats.
With his announcement this week, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has increased the concern among environmentalists that Ottawa regards them as implacable adversaries to be monitored and battled, rather than well-meaning advocates to be consulted.
“This is just one more step in their attempt to marginalize the environmental movement and to quiet its voice,” John Bennett, executive director of Sierra Club Canada, said Friday. “It’s an indirect suggestion that somehow environmentalism is attached to terrorism and that’s just wrong.”
On Thursday, Mr. Toews released a statement on the government’s strategy, which will target not only known terrorist groups but “vulnerable individuals” who could be drawn into politically inspired violence.
The minister said that, in addition to foreign threats, the government would be vigilant against domestic extremism that is “based on grievances – real or perceived – revolving around the promotion of various causes such as animal rights, white supremacy, environmentalism and anti-capitalism.”
New Democratic Party MP Megan Leslie said the new strategy should be seen in the context of the government’s effort to demonize the environmental movement and aboriginal groups that are opposed to the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.
The project, which would carry oil-sands bitumen to the B.C. coast for export to Asian markets, is a top priority for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has extolled Canada’s ability to supply oil to China during his visit to the rapidly growing Asian country this week.
Mr. Harper and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver have warned against foreign-funded, radical environmentalists who are determined to derail the Gateway pipeline, while a document from the Department of Foreign Affairs listed allies of the government’s oil-sands development plans and “adversaries” that included environmental and aboriginal groups.
Ms. Leslie said the anti-terrorism strategy carries the adversarial relationship between the government and the environmental groups to the extreme.
“I find it offensive that there is a list that puts people trying to protect the environment on the same list as white supremacists,” Ms. Leslie said. She said Ottawa has created a chill among groups that worry they are being infiltrated and subjected to surveillance, as police did with protest groups prior to the G20 meeting in Toronto in 2010.
However a spokesman for Mr. Toews said those fears are baseless, that the government is not targeting legitimate dissent.
“Terrorist action occurs when an extremist ideological group plans to carry out a violent attack that reasonably can be expected to kill people or destroy property,” Michael Patton, Mr. Toews’s director of communication, said in an e-mail Friday.
“We have seen individuals or groups of differing ideologies or points of view both internationally and domestically who have planned and carried out violent attacks to bring attention to their causes.”
There have been fringe groups that advocated violence to stop resource development, and a few years ago, there was a spate of pipelines bombings in northern Alberta that caused damage but no injuries.
At the same time, native leaders have warned Ottawa that their younger generation is becoming increasingly impatient with the poverty of first nations, and may turn to violence if resource projects are approved without their agreement and participation.
Canada PM vows to ensure key oil pipeline is built
By David Ljunggren, Reuters, February 10, 2012
Canada's prime minister on Friday made his strongest comments yet in support of a proposed pipeline from oil-rich Alberta to the Pacific coast, saying his government was committed to ensuring the controversial project went ahead.
Enbridge Inc's Northern Gateway pipeline, which is strongly opposed by green groups and some aboriginal bands, would allow Canada to send tankers of crude to China and reduce reliance on the U.S. market.
An independent energy regulator -- which could in theory reject the project -- last month started two years of hearings into the pipeline.
In remarks that appeared to cast some doubt on the regulator's eventual findings, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said it had become "increasingly clear that it is in Canada's national interest to diversify our energy markets".
He continued: "To this end, our government is committed to ensuring that Canada has the infrastructure necessary to move our energy resources to those diversified markets."
Harper stepped up talk of oil sales to China in the wake of a U.S. decision last month to block TransCanada Corp's proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast of the United States.
Virtually all of Canada's energy exports go to the United States, where a glut of supplies means some Canadian crude is sold at sometimes heavy discounts.
"We have abundant supplies of virtually every form of energy. And you know, we want to sell our energy to people who want to buy our energy -- it's that simple," Harper told a business dinner in Guangzhou.
Opponents of the pipeline say the risk of a pipeline rupture or tanker accident are too great. Harper's government brands some of the green groups as foreign-funded radicals.
China has already made clear it is very interested in buying Canadian oil, even though there is little chance crude would arrive inside the next decade. Regardless of how the Canadian energy regulator rules on Northern Gateway, the decision is likely to face a series of lengthy court challenges.
Harper had a cool attitude towards China when he took power in 2006, citing Beijing's record on human rights. In recent years, he has stressed the need for more trade to help Canada deal with economic woes in the United States and Europe.
Current bilateral trade is modest and in 2010 was less than C$60 billion ($60 billion), around a tenth of combined Canada-U.S. two-way trade.
Harper, leading the largest business delegation to China for almost 15 years, said China had "shown the world how to make a poor people rich" and predicted it would soon become the world's largest economy.
He also said he would continue to "raise issues of fundamental freedoms and human rights" in talks with China.
"Canada does not -- and cannot -- disconnect our trading relationship from fundamental national values," he said.
Community rally a full-court press against proposed pipeline (with photos)
By Mike Hager and Gordon Hoekstra, Vancouver Sun, February 06, 2012
Nearly 1,000 people marched in Prince Rupert on the weekend to protest against Enbridge's proposed $5.5-billion Northern Gateway oil pipeline.
The protest was hosted by the Gitga'at First Nation, which is based at the end of Douglas Channel and would see much of the proposed tanker traffic.
The event began with beating drums and singing around 10: 30 a.m. Saturday in Pacific Mariners Memorial Park and ended at the Jim Ciccone Civic Centre, where speakers, dancers and singers continued into the evening.
Bob Hill, treaty coordinator and negotiator for the Gitga'at and an MC at the rally, said the event was planned in the lead-up to the National Energy Board hearings slated to visit the area later this month.
"We've invited all the neighbouring nations and we've received 100-per-cent support," Hill said as he walked from the stage at the rally.
He noted it was Gitga'at residents of Hartley Bay who res-cued passengers off the B.C. ferry Queen of the North when it sank in 2006.
"And it's an example of what a small community is faced with in regards to tanker traffic - and the Queen of the North is minute compared to the size of the tankers they're talking about."
Hill said the view of the Gitga'at is, "No matter how careful we are in improving technology, and the safety concerns we have, there's always that chance that human error will enter the equation and do the damage to the environment."
Enbridge officials said Sun-day the company would not comment on the Prince Rupert protest.
A federal review panel is meeting in communities affected by the proposed pipe-line, and more than 4,300 speakers have signed up for the process, which could last into next year. The panel meets in Prince Rupert beginning Feb. 16 for a week.
Some of Saturday's large crowd were people in town for the 53rd annual All Native Basketball Tournament, which began Sunday. Aboriginal men and women from all over the province will compete in four different divisions on 52 teams.
Clayton Thomas-Muller, an aboriginal environmental activist who travelled from Ottawa for the rally, said: "I came here to help out with the program and just to support as a 'foreign radical.'" He added with a chuckle, "From an indigenous perspective, I'm Cree coming into Gitga'at territory."
Prince Rupert Mayor Jack Mussallem, city councillors and residents from that city, first nations from communities around B.C. and even singer Bif Naked took part in the march and ensuing rally.
Opponents argue the potential for a catastrophic oil spill is too great a risk for the controversial project, while supporters say the pipeline could boost the country's gross domestic product by as much as $270 billion.
Enbridge spokesman Paul Stanway said Sunday more than 20 aboriginal communities in B.C. and Alberta have signed on to take an ownership stake in the pipeline.
No B.C. first nations have said publicly they support the project.
At one point, some leaders of the Gitxsan First Nation in northwest B.C. said they had signed a partnership deal, but it later fell apart in the face of community opposition.
"We expect that in the coming months some [first nations] will wish to make their involvement public," said Stanway in an email.
He said the opportunity to partner with Enbridge in the ownership of Northern Gate-way remains open until the end of May.
Community rally a full-court press against proposed pipeline
By Mike Hager and Gordon Hoekstra, The Vancouver Sun, February 06, 2012
Protest organized by Gitga'at First Nation includes participants in town for All Native Basketball Tournament
Nearly 1,000 people marched in Prince Rupert on the weekend to protest against Enbridge's proposed $5.5-billion Northern Gateway oil pipeline.
The protest was hosted by the Gitga'at First Nation, which is based at the end of Douglas Channel and would see much of the proposed tanker traffic.
The event began with beating drums and singing around 10: 30 a.m. Saturday in Pacific Mariners Memorial Park and ended at the Jim Ciccone Civic Centre, where speakers, dancers and singers continued into the evening.
Bob Hill, treaty coordinator and negotiator for the Gitga'at and an MC at the rally, said the event was planned in the lead-up to the National Energy Board hearings slated to visit the area later this month.
"We've invited all the neighbouring nations and we've received 100-per-cent support," Hill said as he walked from the stage at the rally.
He noted it was Gitga'at residents of Hartley Bay who res-cued passengers off the B.C. ferry Queen of the North when it sank in 2006.
"And it's an example of what a small community is faced with in regards to tanker traffic - and the Queen of the North is minute compared to the size of the tankers they're talking about."
Hill said the view of the Gitga'at is, "No matter how careful we are in improving technology, and the safety concerns we have, there's always that chance that human error will enter the equation and do the damage to the environment."
Enbridge officials said Sun-day the company would not comment on the Prince Rupert protest.
A federal review panel is meeting in communities affected by the proposed pipe-line, and more than 4,300 speakers have signed up for the process, which could last into next year. The panel meets in Prince Rupert beginning Feb. 16 for a week.
Some of Saturday's large crowd were people in town for the 53rd annual All Native Basketball Tournament, which began Sunday. Aboriginal men and women from all over the province will compete in four different divisions on 52 teams.
Clayton Thomas-Muller, an aboriginal environmental activist who travelled from Ottawa for the rally, said: "I came here to help out with the program and just to support as a 'foreign radical.'" He added with a chuckle, "From an indigenous perspective, I'm Cree coming into Gitga'at territory."
Prince Rupert Mayor Jack Mussallem, city councillors and residents from that city, first nations from communities around B.C. and even singer Bif Naked took part in the march and ensuing rally.
Opponents argue the potential for a catastrophic oil spill is too great a risk for the controversial project, while supporters say the pipeline could boost the country's gross domestic product by as much as $270 billion.
Enbridge spokesman Paul Stanway said Sunday more than 20 aboriginal communities in B.C. and Alberta have signed on to take an ownership stake in the pipeline.
No B.C. first nations have said publicly they support the project.
At one point, some leaders of the Gitxsan First Nation in northwest B.C. said they had signed a partnership deal, but it later fell apart in the face of community opposition.
"We expect that in the coming months some [first nations] will wish to make their involvement public," said Stanway in an email.
He said the opportunity to partner with Enbridge in the ownership of Northern Gate-way remains open until the end of May.
mhager@vancouversun.com ghoekstra@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Rally Against Enbridge
CBC, February 04, 2012
Visiting when arrows were flying: Dakelh people protest Enbridge pipeline
By Tyler McCreary, Rabble, February 04, 2012
At the terminus of Highway 27, far into the northern interior of British Columbia, Fort St. James seems to belong to a remote Canadian hinterland. But this town, mostly remembered for its history as an old fur-trading post, on February 2 found itself at the centre of political negotiations about the future of Canada.
Located on the southeastern shore of Stuart Lake, Fort St. James rests in the heart of the territory inhabited by Dakelh (or Carrier) people. The Dakelh have never signed treaty nor ceded their claim to their traditional territories. Nonetheless, the company Enbridge is proposing to build a pipeline through the heart of Dakelh territory to carry bitumen from the Alberta tar sands to port.
As the federally appointed panel reviewing the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline convened in Fort St. James, the Dakelh people joined with supporters to rally in opposition to the proposed project. Leading the protest were the people of Nak'azdli.
Adjacent to Fort St. James, the very name of the Dakelh community of Nak'azdli attests to the long history of the Dakelh people defending their lands. Nak'azdli translates to "when arrows were flying," a reference to a historic battle at the mouth of the river that flows out Stuart Lake. This lineage of fierce defence of Dakelh lands remained in evidence in the streets of Fort St James.
More than a hundred people gathered outside the Chief Kwah Memorial Hall to march together to the Legion hall where the review panel hearing was taking place. Drummers greeted the early morning sun with the sound of resistance, and Nak'azdli elder Charlie Sam offered a prayer to initiate proceedings.
As the assembly marched onto the highway a call-and-response led by Terry Teegee echoed through the streets. "When I say no, you say Enbridge. No, Enbridge. No, Enbridge. When I say no, you say pipelines. No, pipelines. No, pipelines."
Local vehicles honked in solidarity and drivers waved in support to the passing assembly. The eruption of protest into the everyday rhythms of rural life found resonance in common northern concerns about the potential impact of an oil pipeline on local lands and waters. Logging trucks loaded with timber paused in recognition of the public demonstration.
At the close of the march, on the steps outside the Legion where the review panel hearing was being held. Terry Teegee, Vice Chief of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, began by rebuking Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver's suggestion that "radical groups" were seeking to block the pipeline. Amidst cheers from the crowd, Teegee pronounced, "We are not radicals, we are protectors of the lands."
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, who drove 11 and a half hours with his wife Joan from Penticton to attend the protest, addressed the crowd. "It is Indigenous people," he said, "the Yinka Dene and all of our Indigenous brothers and sisters across this great land that are the stewards and the caretakers of the land and must be consulted with respect to any projects that are contemplated."
"Because we are from the land, our sacred responsibilities and obligations go to the land and the waters. It was a sacred trust that was handed to us from our ancestors through their sacrifice and hard work." He explained, "We now carry the torch and bear the burden of that responsibility. And I am so proud, I am so proud to stand here today in solidarity with all of you to carry on that proud tradition of standing up to protect the land and everything that it represents."
Phillip also acknowledged the important role of non-Indigenous people, "our friends and neighbours who are also part of this very important struggle. We share this land together, we bear that stewardship responsibility together." Together, Phillip argued, "we march through the streets, the towns, the cities to give expression to our opposition to this absolutely ludicrous project."
Joan Phillip then addressed the crowd, expressing the solidarity of the Penticton Indian Band with the struggle of the Dakelh people against the pipeline. Nak'azli elected chief, Fred Sam expressed that this solidarity between nations as well as between neighbours would ensure that the Prime Minister of Canada, Premier of British Columbia, and President of China know that "these lands are not for sale."
Invoking the terms of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Sam stated his commitment to stand by the principle of "free, prior, and informed consent." Expressing the meaning of this principle, Saik'uz Chief Jackie Thomas explained, "we need to be free to say what we want in our country." This principle of consent represents the principle that those Indigenous people most impacted, most threatened by a project, possess the right to say no.
Elder Charlie Sam questioned the government's inability to understand this principle. "What part of no do they not understand. Our people said no. This is our land." He explained, "We rely on the water. We rely on the fish that come here every year. When we say no, we mean no."
Recently released Canadian government strategy documents obtained through freedom of information requests list First Nations as adversaries to tar sands development. However, the words of Dakelh elders and leaders demonstrated how First Nations are the true allies to this land.
The resistance to the Enbridge pipeline is growing, with Alberta and Northwest Territories First Nations being the most recent signatories to add their names to a declaration opposed to the pipeline. "We are not alone," Jackie Thomas explained. "This is not just for our Indigenous brothers and sisters. This is for everybody. We all need to have water. It is the basis of life." It is on the basis of this vital shared concern that the resistance will continue on.
Visiting when arrows were flying: Dakelh people protest Enbridge pipeline
By Tyler McCreary, Rabble, February 04, 2012
At the terminus of Highway 27, far into the northern interior of British Columbia, Fort St. James seems to belong to a remote Canadian hinterland. But this town, mostly remembered for its history as an old fur-trading post, on February 2 found itself at the centre of political negotiations about the future of Canada.
Located on the southeastern shore of Stuart Lake, Fort St. James rests in the heart of the territory inhabited by Dakelh (or Carrier) people. The Dakelh have never signed treaty nor ceded their claim to their traditional territories. Nonetheless, the company Enbridge is proposing to build a pipeline through the heart of Dakelh territory to carry bitumen from the Alberta tar sands to port.
As the federally appointed panel reviewing the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline convened in Fort St. James, the Dakelh people joined with supporters to rally in opposition to the proposed project. Leading the protest were the people of Nak'azdli.
Adjacent to Fort St. James, the very name of the Dakelh community of Nak'azdli attests to the long history of the Dakelh people defending their lands. Nak'azdli translates to "when arrows were flying," a reference to a historic battle at the mouth of the river that flows out Stuart Lake. This lineage of fierce defence of Dakelh lands remained in evidence in the streets of Fort St James.
More than a hundred people gathered outside the Chief Kwah Memorial Hall to march together to the Legion hall where the review panel hearing was taking place. Drummers greeted the early morning sun with the sound of resistance, and Nak'azdli elder Charlie Sam offered a prayer to initiate proceedings.
As the assembly marched onto the highway a call-and-response led by Terry Teegee echoed through the streets. "When I say no, you say Enbridge. No, Enbridge. No, Enbridge. When I say no, you say pipelines. No, pipelines. No, pipelines."
Local vehicles honked in solidarity and drivers waved in support to the passing assembly. The eruption of protest into the everyday rhythms of rural life found resonance in common northern concerns about the potential impact of an oil pipeline on local lands and waters. Logging trucks loaded with timber paused in recognition of the public demonstration.
At the close of the march, on the steps outside the Legion where the review panel hearing was being held. Terry Teegee, Vice Chief of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, began by rebuking Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver's suggestion that "radical groups" were seeking to block the pipeline. Amidst cheers from the crowd, Teegee pronounced, "We are not radicals, we are protectors of the lands."
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, who drove 11 and a half hours with his wife Joan from Penticton to attend the protest, addressed the crowd. "It is Indigenous people," he said, "the Yinka Dene and all of our Indigenous brothers and sisters across this great land that are the stewards and the caretakers of the land and must be consulted with respect to any projects that are contemplated."
"Because we are from the land, our sacred responsibilities and obligations go to the land and the waters. It was a sacred trust that was handed to us from our ancestors through their sacrifice and hard work." He explained, "We now carry the torch and bear the burden of that responsibility. And I am so proud, I am so proud to stand here today in solidarity with all of you to carry on that proud tradition of standing up to protect the land and everything that it represents."
Phillip also acknowledged the important role of non-Indigenous people, "our friends and neighbours who are also part of this very important struggle. We share this land together, we bear that stewardship responsibility together." Together, Phillip argued, "we march through the streets, the towns, the cities to give expression to our opposition to this absolutely ludicrous project."
Joan Phillip then addressed the crowd, expressing the solidarity of the Penticton Indian Band with the struggle of the Dakelh people against the pipeline. Nak'azli elected chief, Fred Sam expressed that this solidarity between nations as well as between neighbours would ensure that the Prime Minister of Canada, Premier of British Columbia, and President of China know that "these lands are not for sale."
Invoking the terms of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Sam stated his commitment to stand by the principle of "free, prior, and informed consent." Expressing the meaning of this principle, Saik'uz Chief Jackie Thomas explained, "we need to be free to say what we want in our country." This principle of consent represents the principle that those Indigenous people most impacted, most threatened by a project, possess the right to say no.
Elder Charlie Sam questioned the government's inability to understand this principle. "What part of no do they not understand. Our people said no. This is our land." He explained, "We rely on the water. We rely on the fish that come here every year. When we say no, we mean no."
Recently released Canadian government strategy documents obtained through freedom of information requests list First Nations as adversaries to tar sands development. However, the words of Dakelh elders and leaders demonstrated how First Nations are the true allies to this land.
The resistance to the Enbridge pipeline is growing, with Alberta and Northwest Territories First Nations being the most recent signatories to add their names to a declaration opposed to the pipeline. "We are not alone," Jackie Thomas explained. "This is not just for our Indigenous brothers and sisters. This is for everybody. We all need to have water. It is the basis of life." It is on the basis of this vital shared concern that the resistance will continue on.
Gateway panel urged to affirm it’s impartial
By Nathan Vanderklippe, The Globe and Mail, January 27, 2012
As the federal government prepares to make major changes to the way Canada reviews industrial projects, environmentalists are challenging the panel assessing the Northern Gateway pipeline to prove it’s not biased.
Over the past few weeks, federal ministers have carried out a high-profile dispute with environmental groups, some of which have been labelled “radicals.” Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he is working quickly to bring forward new rules creating more rapid review processes that can’t be “hijacked” by such groups. He has warned about “foreigners” gumming up regulatory processes. The clear inference was to the Gateway review.
Now, Ecojustice, a legal group representing environmental advocates, is questioning whether that political pressure is affecting the ability of the three-person joint federal review panel to properly assess Gateway, a $6.6-billion project that would carry Alberta crude to the West Coast for export to Asia and California.
In a motion filed Friday, Ecojustice asks the panel to determine whether statements from Mr. Harper and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, “constitute an attempt by those ministers to undermine or have had the effect of undermining the panel” in a way that would create “unfairness in the hearing process.”
Ecojustice, which filed the motion on behalf of Living Oceans Society, Rainforest Conservation Foundation and ForestEthics, urges the panel to issue a statement confirming its independence.
It also wants the panel to urge the government to butt out, asking it to request “that ministers of the Crown refrain from further public comments on the proceedings of the panel and participants in the proceedings until the panel’s proceedings are concluded.”
The motion comes as environmental groups scrutinize the panel’s work for signs of bias – although Devon Page, executive director with Ecojustice, said they have not seen evidence that the panelists have been tainted.
Indeed, the panel has gone to great lengths, in the hearings it has been conducting across western Canada, to maintain its independence, declining to reply to federal comments. In a statement Friday, panel spokeswoman Annie Roy said the panel “is an independent body” that is fulfilling its mandate to assess the project through a public process.
And though they have angered some, it does not appear that ministers commenting publicly on the Gateway process are doing anything wrong. Legal experts contacted by The Globe and Mail said it would be nearly impossible to mount a bias case based on statements from political leaders. While the joint review panel is called upon to be unbiased, federal ministers are not.
Indeed, Cabinet must eventually take a stand on the project, deciding whether to approve or deny it once the panel’s work is over.
With the Ecojustice motion, the panel has several possible options for response, said Devon Page, executive director of the legal group. It can refuse the motion, take it under advisement, or agree to consider the issues at the hearing.
Mr. Page argued that calling environmental participants in the Gateway review “radicals” has affected their appearances before the panel. That alone, he said, begs for a response.
“In the public hearings to date, people that have been invited to make comments have felt compelled to either reference the situation [with statements from Ottawa] or to distance themselves from it,” he said. “So, certainly, it already has affected the hearing process. And if the effect of that is to taint the participation, or taint their evidence, it’s appropriate for the National Energy Board to caution the outside world against interfering with their process.”
‘Radical’ federal remarks boost support for enviro groups
The Canadian Press, January 27, 2012
Tough talk from Ottawa about radical environmentalists and foreign-funded adversaries seems to be actually strengthening support for those groups under attack.
Environmental groups involved in the debate over Enbridge Inc.'s Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline to the west coast report that donations have soared in recent weeks -- especially after Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said U.S.-funded environmentalists and jet-setting celebrities are trying to hijack the regulatory hearings.
"We've seen an unprecedented surge of support," said Emma Gilchrist of the Dogwood Initiative, a B.C.-based group which has received $12,000 in unsolicited donations since Oliver's letter.
"We've got cheques that say, in the memo section, 'Thanks to Joe Oliver."'
Dogwood also got nearly 25,000 new signatures on its anti-tanker petition -- more than it got all of last year. Traffic to its Facebook site increased 10,000 per cent.
"We're quite disappointed to hear the things coming out of the federal government, but it has brought people together," Gilchrist said.
They're not alone.
The Sierra Club warned its supporters in December that it could be a target during the Conservative government's upcoming review of charitable status.
"We got 100 per cent more than we hoped for," said director John Bennett.
"We usually bring in about $40-50,000 toward the end of the year. It was around $100,000 this year."
Similarly at West Coast Environmental Law, said Jessica Clogg.
"We've seen pretty consistently that not only have our existing supporters been galvanized by the statements of the federal government, but that new individuals are coming to our organization and indicating their support," she said.
"We have received close to $10,000 in donations that appear directly linked to the current controversy since Jan. 2."
ForestEthics, the subject of controversy earlier this week when a former employee quoted a second-hand report that a Harper official called the group an enemy of the government, put out an appeal Wednesday. Donations started coming in almost right away, said spokeswoman Valerie Langer.
"It's not just that people are really concerned about climate and toxics," she said. "They're also furious about the federal government trying to limit our freedom to participate in major policy discussions."
The David Suzuki Foundation and Ecojustice also report modest increases in donations since the new year.
And the environmental think-tank The Pembina Institute has seen the rate of new subscribers to its electronic newsletter triple since January.
"There's a real appetite among Canadians who listen to these allegations for reliable information," said director Ed Whittingham. "They're turning to us."
Controversy appears to be good for fundraising and it works both ways. When Chiquita Brands announced in December it would avoid the use of oilsands-derived fuel in its transportation fleet, Ethical Oil spokeswoman Kathryn Marshall said she was "flooded" with donations and messages of support.
U.S. data suggests that environmental organizations raise more money when Republicans are in the White House, said George Hoberg, a University of British Columbia political scientist who's studied such issues for years.
"I'm not surprised the Joe Oliver remarks have created a strong backlash," he said. "What it's done is it has politicized moderates on energy and environment issues.
"The Harper government strategy with regard to environmental groups has unfortunately dramatically increased the polarization of energy politics in Canada. The Canada characterized by compromise is not Harper's Canada."
Pipeline itself not the only problem we should worry about
By Mark Jaccard, Vancouver Sun, January 26, 2012
As a sustainable energy researcher, I have been inundated with media requests to comment on the pro-posed new pipelines from Alberta's tar-sands, especially Enbridge's Northern Gateway here in British Columbia. I have mostly declined, assuming that with such intense public interest the key issues would get a full airing. But I was wrong - for no one is discussing the proverbial "elephant in the room." This is the connection between tarsands expansion and Prime Minister Stephen Harper's 2007 promise to Canadians to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions 65 per cent by 2050.
Harper's promise, recently recon-firmed, simply reflects the overwhelming scientific consensus that while any increase in average global temperatures from pre-industrial levels is dangerous, increases above 2 degrees Celsius will likely have cataclysmic effects for the ecosystems on which we depend. Yet human combustion of fossil fuels has already driven the temperature 1.2 degrees higher, and we are on a path of 4 degrees or more in this century alone, which will ultimately increase the sea level by tens of metres. This is why leaders of industrialized countries, like the U.S. and European Union, agreed to reduce emissions 80 per cent by 2050 and will work to require global emissions to start declining this decade.
A target 38 years hence might seem safely distant. But this is incorrect. All leading independent climate policy institutes concur that only with immediate action will we achieve a 65-80 per cent reduction in less than four decades. In the case of vehicles, this means the rapid deployment of near-zero-emission technologies which, thankfully, are already commercially available. These include hybrid vehicles using biofuels (ethanol or biodiesel), plug-in hybrid vehicles, and battery-electric vehicles. In contrast, our demand, and soon the global demand, for oil must contract, especially the demand for high-cost, high-emission tarsands.
Thus, for his promise not to be a lie, Harper cannot allow expansion of tarsands and associated pipelines, and he must require a growing market share of near-zero-emission vehicles. He knows this because his analysts are privy to the work of the world's leading researchers. Canadians on all sides of the issue should read a 20-page report from MIT's Joint Pro-gram on the Science and Policy of Global Change entitled Canada's Bitumen Industry Under CO2 Constraints (found at http: //globalchange.mit. edu). The report shows how and why the Canadian tarsands must contract as part of a global effort to prevent a 4 degree increase in temperatures and catastrophic climate change.
Why, then, would anyone argue for tarsands expansion and pipelines like Gateway? The reasons are obvious, as writers have known through the ages.
People who stand to get rich from tarsands development will delude themselves and try to delude others that the climate science is faulty or uncertain. As Upton Sinclair wrote, "it is hard to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it." And those who stand to gain from the tar-sands indirectly (like politicians) will distract people from the obvious connection between tarsands expansion and climate catastrophe. "Tarsands are a small part of the problem."
"What about the Chinese?" "The tar-sands will inevitably be developed." "Low-emission vehicles and fuels are not ready yet." And so on - all of it bogus. As H. L. Mencken wrote, "the truth that survives is simply the lie that is pleasantest to believe."
The oft-heard argument that B.C. needs the jobs and tax revenue is particularly galling. This is like arguing we need jobs making a toxin or nuclear weapons. We are not helping ourselves and our children by creating jobs that spew CO2 into the atmosphere. We are already creating jobs that propel our vehicles without CO2 emissions, and we can do so much more.
And where is the logic in the almost-complete focus on pipeline or oil tanker spills by environmentalists and first nations? If Enbridge is able to convince the hearing panel that these local threats are acceptable, then the project goes ahead. But since climate change will devastate all of the ecosystems potentially affected by the project, efforts to prevent local damage from spills are fruitless if they are not part of a concerted effort to stop CO2 emissions. Otherwise, it's like trying to prevent a fuel leak on the Titanic as it steams toward the iceberg. We need to turn the ship.
The facts are simple. Our political leaders are lying to us if they aid and abet the expansion of tarsands while promising to take action to prevent the imminent climate catastrophe. If you love this planet and your children, and are humble and objective in considering the findings of science, you have no choice but to battle hard to stop Gateway and other tarsands pipelines. It is time to face up to this challenge with honesty and courage.
Mark Jaccard is a professor at Simon Fraser University and lead author for sustainable energy policy in the upcoming Global Energy Assessment.
Federal documents spark outcry by oil sands critics
By Nathan Vanderklippe, The Globe and Mail, January 26, 2012
Critics are attacking Ottawa’s energy strategy after internal documents shed new light on the extent of federal efforts to advocate for the oil sands industry.
The documents, obtained through an access to information request and released by Greenpeace Canada, are a draft diplomatic strategy outlining ways to shape European perceptions of Canada’s oil sands. They show that the government’s messages are intended to shift attitudes in media and among top decision makers regarding the oil sands industry, which faces a possible effective import ban in Europe as the continent pursues a low-carbon fuel strategy.
In the document, environmental organizations and aboriginal groups are shown as “adversaries.” Industry associations, energy companies and the National Energy Board – which is supposed to serve as an independent body evaluating new projects – are listed as “allies.”
Critics say the documents raise questions about the government’s ability to fairly regulate new energy projects, and its increasing embrace of the country’s energy industry. Ministers have publicly tussled with environmental groups and made clear their friendly attitude toward Corporate Canada.
Government officials quickly moved to play down the significance of the documents. A spokesman for International Trade Minister Ed Fast said “we do not agree with the characterizations” of the documents, and Environment Minister Peter Kent called them “a gross mischaracterization of reality.”
On Thursday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper reiterated his support for oil expansion at the Davos World Economic Forum, calling it a “national priority to ensure we have the capacity to export our energy products beyond the United States and specifically to Asia.”
Also Thursday, Mr. Kent, in an address to a Calgary Chamber of Commerce audience packed with some of the top oil patch executives, described the new relationship between industry and his ministry, which plays an important role in regulating new projects.
“Environment Canada is a strategic partner to everyone in this room – everyone who does business in Calgary, everyone who does business in Alberta, everyone who does business in Canada,” he said.
“I’m not here to kill your buzz,” he said, adding that “we’ve reviewed and renewed our approach as a government department” to focus on efficiency and expediency – both inside the department, and in its focus on allowing industry to create jobs and investment.
Although he said “we are still environmental regulators,” he highlighted Environment Canada’s efforts at streamlining regulations as “the equivalent of installing bright lights around a rocky path to make progress safer and swifter.”
Those statements raised eyebrows among those who say the duty of Canadian regulators is not to advocate on behalf of one party.
Environment Canada’s duties do include partnering with industry, in the sense that it must call on companies to achieve better performance. But “the focus of regulation has to be on public interest, not on the interest of one particular stakeholder group – including industry,” said Jack Mintz, the director of the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy who also sits on the board of Imperial Oil Ltd.
Environmental advocates say Ottawa has begun to shift the definition of what is good for the country.
“The Harper government is now making explicit that they define protecting the public interest as protecting the interests of the oil industry,” said Devon Page, executive director of Ecojustice, a legal defence group that works with environmental organizations. “This is consistent with a shift that we’ve seen at Environment Canada ever since Harper came into power, and it’s the shift from being a steward of the natural environment to being a partner with industry.”
Such a policy – and the provocative language the government has used to further it, including labelling some environmental groups “radicals” – could have longer-term consequences, said Warren Mabee, director of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy at Queen’s University.
He pointed to the development of the national energy program, and the Trudeau government’s provocative language toward Alberta as it worked to set that into place. That, he argued, helped set in motion the western Reform movement. Ottawa’s current battle against environmental groups could also create long-term unintended consequences, he warned.
And, Mr. Mabee added, this country’s battles over cutting old-growth forest – which led to international consumer rejection of Canadian products – should serve as a cautionary tale.
“By favouring one outcome over another, government runs the risk of creating the impression of manipulating the process. And that will just backfire, I think, in terms of market acceptance of the product.”
© Friends of Wild Salmon 2008
