Canada is a coke bottle
Canada is a coke bottle,
running down this snowy road with the flame
to the next person waiting in white;
in Vancouver where bulldozers push the snow from
higher mountains wrapped in cloud,
brought down to the level of rain puddles,
meteorologist city-watching from an office window,
the Suzuki foundation warns of
global warming on the slopes of Cypress:
Canada is a coke bottle.
My young son waves the coke flags,
Canada, Coca-Cola,
concentrated in a bottle,
through the inky blackness:
what is it exactly?
Forgotten watersheds, schools,
cancer patients,
the pulp mill shut down for the afternoon
so as not to smell in the national media
when the torch came through,
brightening Ospika temporarily,
the drab street where I run
and nothing ever seems to happen,
but for tarring the potholes;
they are all here this afternoon,
the crowds,
what matters now,
jarring music that drowns everything out,
searching desperately for my friends
to hand out "No Tanker" decals
to paint the loony-loons black
with a slick of oil
the lick of black,
oozes now from us:
Canada is a coke bottle.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
letter to Jim Prentice, Canada Environment Minister from Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance re: Joint Review Panel, Enbridge Northern Gateway
January 26, 2010
The Honourable Jim Prentice
Minister of Environment
Government of Canada
By Email Correspondence to: Jim.Prentice@ec.gc.ca
Dear Sir:
Re: Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – Final Agreement on Joint Review Process
This letter is to state the opinions of the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance with regards
to the terms of the Final Agreement on the Joint Review Panel process for the Enbridge
Northern Gateway crude oil/ condensate twin pipelines.
We are a group of concerned citizens based out of Prince George, British Columbia with
support from across western Canada. Prince George is a community that lies in close
proximity to the proposed Enbridge pipelines route, and is inhabited by people that are
closely tied to the surrounding land. We recently formed the Sea to Sands Conservation
Alliance to express our concern for this mega‐project. Interest in our group has been
considerable and our groups already have well over 600 supporters; opposition to this
pipeline project is increasing daily throughout British Columbia. We count ourselves as
part of a broader network of concerned citizens.
Our reasons for opposing the terms of the final agreement on the Joint Review Panel are
as follows:
1. We seriously question whether a three‐member panel comprised of two National
Energy Board members and one Environment Minister appointed member will be
adequate to evaluate this process. This is because of the magnitude of this project,
its broad‐sweeping implications and the number of communities and stakeholders
that will be affected by it.
2. The mandate of the National Energy Board seems to be too narrow to properly allow
panel members to address the variety of issues at stake. Of particular concern is the
panel’s decision to exclude the environmental impacts of the tar sands expansion in
its environmental assessment. This is very disconcerting because the proposed
Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline could result in up to 30 percent increase in oil
1
sands production. It seems short‐sighted and inappropriate to disregard direct
broader impacts of a project in an assessment.
3. Other pipelines in Canada of a similar magnitude have had more involved and
sophisticated review processes. For example, the Mackenzie gas pipeline joint
review panel terms of reference were drafted in conjunction with First Nations and
were much more comprehensive. The scope of this review included, among other
things, questions about whether the project would contribute to sustainability
within the region.
4. The concerns of the public, submitted during the public consultation process leading
up to finalizing the agreement, have not been adequately addressed in the terms of
this agreement. For instance, many members of the public noted the issue of the
moratorium on oil tanker traffic on this part of the coast. There has been a longstanding
moratorium on oil tanker traffic through the coastal inland waters of
northern British Columbia, initiated in 1972 and confirmed by Natural Resources
Canada in 2003. The terms of the Joint Review Panel do not provide for adequate
dialogue about whether British Columbians want this long‐standing moratorium
against oil tanker traffic lifted.
5. Aboriginal rights are not sufficiently addressed, particularly their right to
consultation confirmed by the Constitution and the common law. Several local First
Nations in our area (Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, Takla First Nation and Nadleh
Whut’en) have already issued media releases in response to the finalization of the
Joint Review Process. These groups state that their Aboriginal rights are being
violated. We fully support the position of First Nations groups from our area
concerning this issue.
6. We are concerned about the potential for lack of administrative fairness on the
panel. We do acknowledge that it is stated in the agreement that the members are
to be “unbiased and free from any conflict of interest in relation to the project”.
However, we remain concerned that in your capacity as Environment Minister, you
are selecting one of the three panel members. Our reason for concern is that you
have been quoted many times as being in support of oil sands production and
increasing markets for same, Mr. Prentice.
Some examples:
• “Prentice defends oilsands following National Geographic article,” retrieved
on January 15, 2010 from
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/25/oilsands‐articles.html.
• “Speaking Points of Jim Prentice” (as Minister of Industry)
retrieved on January 15, 2010 from
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icI.nsf/eng/01970.html.
• “Prentice won’t rule out oilsands emissions breaks”
retrieved on January 15, 2010 from
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2009/12/15/prentice‐oil‐sands.html.
• “Alberta to US: Use the oil sands or lose them,”
retrieved on January 15, 2010, from
2
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/08/3
1/alberta‐to‐u‐s‐use‐the‐oilsands‐or‐lose‐them.aspx.
During your previous portfolio as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
(May 23, 2006), you are quoted on a federal government website in an address to the
Canadian Energy Pipeline Association in Calgary, Alberta, as follows:
“I understand the enormous potential that oil and gas development will bring to
the country. . . Growing global demand for energy and upward pressure on
prices have made new projects feasible. The Gateway pipeline project is another
priority.”
In this same address, you emphasized a Conservative government “concerted and
coordinated federal response on major pipeline projects [that] will allow [your
government] to focus multi‐departmental resources on critical impediments that
threaten projects.”
Finally, you also spoke of your mandate at the time offering opportunities to “create
powerful synergies to realize the potential of pipeline development.”
The above quotes retrieved January 15, 2010, from http://www.aincinac.
gc.ca/ai/mr/spch/2006/cepaad‐eng.asp.
We question whether through your various statements referenced here and elsewhere,
you have expressed support for this pipeline project proceeding?
Our concerns about this review panel are not alleviated by the inclusion of two National
Energy Board members. The vast majority of energy projects reviewed by the National
Energy Board are approved (see for instance “environmentalists say scope of hearings is
too narrow,” Victoria Times Colonist, December 5, 2009, retrieved from
www.timescolonist.com on December 5, 2009).
While the National Energy Board certainly has a role to play, we are concerned that they
comprise two thirds of the panel, given the broad scope of the issues at stake relating to
this project.
In closing, the terms set in the Final Agreement on the Joint Review Panel process do
not reflect the concerns of the citizens and First Nations that would be directly impacted
by the Enbridge Northern Gateway project. An impartial review is necessary, which
includes an appropriate scope that allows for the relevant issues to be discussed and
addressed. There have been numerous calls from the public for a comprehensive public
inquiry into this project (several of which were articulated during the public input time
frame leading up to the formulation of this finalized agreement). We would like you to
consider those calls and establish a comprehensive review process that would have the
support of the First Nations and citizens of Canada that you represent.
The Honourable Jim Prentice
Minister of Environment
Government of Canada
By Email Correspondence to: Jim.Prentice@ec.gc.ca
Dear Sir:
Re: Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – Final Agreement on Joint Review Process
This letter is to state the opinions of the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance with regards
to the terms of the Final Agreement on the Joint Review Panel process for the Enbridge
Northern Gateway crude oil/ condensate twin pipelines.
We are a group of concerned citizens based out of Prince George, British Columbia with
support from across western Canada. Prince George is a community that lies in close
proximity to the proposed Enbridge pipelines route, and is inhabited by people that are
closely tied to the surrounding land. We recently formed the Sea to Sands Conservation
Alliance to express our concern for this mega‐project. Interest in our group has been
considerable and our groups already have well over 600 supporters; opposition to this
pipeline project is increasing daily throughout British Columbia. We count ourselves as
part of a broader network of concerned citizens.
Our reasons for opposing the terms of the final agreement on the Joint Review Panel are
as follows:
1. We seriously question whether a three‐member panel comprised of two National
Energy Board members and one Environment Minister appointed member will be
adequate to evaluate this process. This is because of the magnitude of this project,
its broad‐sweeping implications and the number of communities and stakeholders
that will be affected by it.
2. The mandate of the National Energy Board seems to be too narrow to properly allow
panel members to address the variety of issues at stake. Of particular concern is the
panel’s decision to exclude the environmental impacts of the tar sands expansion in
its environmental assessment. This is very disconcerting because the proposed
Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline could result in up to 30 percent increase in oil
1
sands production. It seems short‐sighted and inappropriate to disregard direct
broader impacts of a project in an assessment.
3. Other pipelines in Canada of a similar magnitude have had more involved and
sophisticated review processes. For example, the Mackenzie gas pipeline joint
review panel terms of reference were drafted in conjunction with First Nations and
were much more comprehensive. The scope of this review included, among other
things, questions about whether the project would contribute to sustainability
within the region.
4. The concerns of the public, submitted during the public consultation process leading
up to finalizing the agreement, have not been adequately addressed in the terms of
this agreement. For instance, many members of the public noted the issue of the
moratorium on oil tanker traffic on this part of the coast. There has been a longstanding
moratorium on oil tanker traffic through the coastal inland waters of
northern British Columbia, initiated in 1972 and confirmed by Natural Resources
Canada in 2003. The terms of the Joint Review Panel do not provide for adequate
dialogue about whether British Columbians want this long‐standing moratorium
against oil tanker traffic lifted.
5. Aboriginal rights are not sufficiently addressed, particularly their right to
consultation confirmed by the Constitution and the common law. Several local First
Nations in our area (Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, Takla First Nation and Nadleh
Whut’en) have already issued media releases in response to the finalization of the
Joint Review Process. These groups state that their Aboriginal rights are being
violated. We fully support the position of First Nations groups from our area
concerning this issue.
6. We are concerned about the potential for lack of administrative fairness on the
panel. We do acknowledge that it is stated in the agreement that the members are
to be “unbiased and free from any conflict of interest in relation to the project”.
However, we remain concerned that in your capacity as Environment Minister, you
are selecting one of the three panel members. Our reason for concern is that you
have been quoted many times as being in support of oil sands production and
increasing markets for same, Mr. Prentice.
Some examples:
• “Prentice defends oilsands following National Geographic article,” retrieved
on January 15, 2010 from
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/25/oilsands‐articles.html.
• “Speaking Points of Jim Prentice” (as Minister of Industry)
retrieved on January 15, 2010 from
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icI.nsf/eng/01970.html.
• “Prentice won’t rule out oilsands emissions breaks”
retrieved on January 15, 2010 from
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2009/12/15/prentice‐oil‐sands.html.
• “Alberta to US: Use the oil sands or lose them,”
retrieved on January 15, 2010, from
2
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/08/3
1/alberta‐to‐u‐s‐use‐the‐oilsands‐or‐lose‐them.aspx.
During your previous portfolio as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
(May 23, 2006), you are quoted on a federal government website in an address to the
Canadian Energy Pipeline Association in Calgary, Alberta, as follows:
“I understand the enormous potential that oil and gas development will bring to
the country. . . Growing global demand for energy and upward pressure on
prices have made new projects feasible. The Gateway pipeline project is another
priority.”
In this same address, you emphasized a Conservative government “concerted and
coordinated federal response on major pipeline projects [that] will allow [your
government] to focus multi‐departmental resources on critical impediments that
threaten projects.”
Finally, you also spoke of your mandate at the time offering opportunities to “create
powerful synergies to realize the potential of pipeline development.”
The above quotes retrieved January 15, 2010, from http://www.aincinac.
gc.ca/ai/mr/spch/2006/cepaad‐eng.asp.
We question whether through your various statements referenced here and elsewhere,
you have expressed support for this pipeline project proceeding?
Our concerns about this review panel are not alleviated by the inclusion of two National
Energy Board members. The vast majority of energy projects reviewed by the National
Energy Board are approved (see for instance “environmentalists say scope of hearings is
too narrow,” Victoria Times Colonist, December 5, 2009, retrieved from
www.timescolonist.com on December 5, 2009).
While the National Energy Board certainly has a role to play, we are concerned that they
comprise two thirds of the panel, given the broad scope of the issues at stake relating to
this project.
In closing, the terms set in the Final Agreement on the Joint Review Panel process do
not reflect the concerns of the citizens and First Nations that would be directly impacted
by the Enbridge Northern Gateway project. An impartial review is necessary, which
includes an appropriate scope that allows for the relevant issues to be discussed and
addressed. There have been numerous calls from the public for a comprehensive public
inquiry into this project (several of which were articulated during the public input time
frame leading up to the formulation of this finalized agreement). We would like you to
consider those calls and establish a comprehensive review process that would have the
support of the First Nations and citizens of Canada that you represent.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Nak'azdli going forward to assert their rights
Press Release from Nak'azdli band re: Mount Milligan mine approval
For Immediate Release
January 7, 2010: Nak’azdli will be filing a Notice of Application today with the Federal Court of Canada requesting a judicial review of recent decisions made by the federal Minister of Environment and federal agencies regarding a proposed low grade gold and copper mine at Mt. Milligan/Shus Nadloh, which, is located 90 km north of Fort St. James.
This federal judicial review application follows the filing of a petition on June 24, 2009 in the BC Supreme Court, which is due to go to court in the spring. “The petition filed by Nak’azdli in the BC Supreme Court and this application filed in Federal Court sends a clear message to Terrane Metals that it does not have its “social licence” to operate in Nak’azdli Territory,” said Chief Fred Sam
“The proposed mine is within Nak’azdli territory and the proposed mine site and surrounding area is clearly utilized by Nak’azdli members, and has been since time immemorial. The manner in which Canada has dealt with Nak’azdli throughout the environmental assessment review process has not upheld the honour of the Crown. They completely ignored impacts of the project on aboriginal rights and title. That is against the law.” stated Chief Fred Sam.
Nak’azdli also refuses to accept the Minister of Environments’ decision that the Mt. Milligan Mine “is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.” Chief Fred Sam asks, “who gets to define what is a significant effect? Nak’azdli has not been asked by the federal government what is significant to us.” The proposed mine on Shus Nadloh (Mt. Milligan) will clearly have a major negative impact on the environment.
“Terrane Metals mine plan includes permanently destroying much of King Richard and Alpine Creeks and two open pits and the mine site with a foot print of 367 hectares and a tailings pond with a foot print of 813 hectares, which will eliminate an area of relatively untouched land and water that is three times the size of Stanley Park in Vancouver. It is ridiculous to conclude there will not be significant adverse environmental effects.” Chief Fred Sam said.
“This should be a wakeup call for investors in GoldCorp and all investors in Terrane Metals, the proposed Mt. Milligan project is NOT a done deal and Nak’azdli has been left with no option but to turn to the federal and provincial Courts to protect our territory. Nak’azdli has been ignored by the government of Canada and BC and we will not sit by quietly.” said Chief Sam
Media Contact: Anne Marie Sam - 250-649-8284 or 250-996-7171
For Immediate Release
January 7, 2010: Nak’azdli will be filing a Notice of Application today with the Federal Court of Canada requesting a judicial review of recent decisions made by the federal Minister of Environment and federal agencies regarding a proposed low grade gold and copper mine at Mt. Milligan/Shus Nadloh, which, is located 90 km north of Fort St. James.
This federal judicial review application follows the filing of a petition on June 24, 2009 in the BC Supreme Court, which is due to go to court in the spring. “The petition filed by Nak’azdli in the BC Supreme Court and this application filed in Federal Court sends a clear message to Terrane Metals that it does not have its “social licence” to operate in Nak’azdli Territory,” said Chief Fred Sam
“The proposed mine is within Nak’azdli territory and the proposed mine site and surrounding area is clearly utilized by Nak’azdli members, and has been since time immemorial. The manner in which Canada has dealt with Nak’azdli throughout the environmental assessment review process has not upheld the honour of the Crown. They completely ignored impacts of the project on aboriginal rights and title. That is against the law.” stated Chief Fred Sam.
Nak’azdli also refuses to accept the Minister of Environments’ decision that the Mt. Milligan Mine “is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.” Chief Fred Sam asks, “who gets to define what is a significant effect? Nak’azdli has not been asked by the federal government what is significant to us.” The proposed mine on Shus Nadloh (Mt. Milligan) will clearly have a major negative impact on the environment.
“Terrane Metals mine plan includes permanently destroying much of King Richard and Alpine Creeks and two open pits and the mine site with a foot print of 367 hectares and a tailings pond with a foot print of 813 hectares, which will eliminate an area of relatively untouched land and water that is three times the size of Stanley Park in Vancouver. It is ridiculous to conclude there will not be significant adverse environmental effects.” Chief Fred Sam said.
“This should be a wakeup call for investors in GoldCorp and all investors in Terrane Metals, the proposed Mt. Milligan project is NOT a done deal and Nak’azdli has been left with no option but to turn to the federal and provincial Courts to protect our territory. Nak’azdli has been ignored by the government of Canada and BC and we will not sit by quietly.” said Chief Sam
Media Contact: Anne Marie Sam - 250-649-8284 or 250-996-7171
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
A Child's Christmas in Canada
this cold snowy night, seated here beside the Christmas tree my son and I decorated together, its lights cheery against the darkest coldest time of year. On the weekend, we went out to a nearby tree farm where they provided us with a saw and told us we could cut our own tree from the collection of snow-laden spruce and fir lined up there, seemingly waiting and watching. We had hot chocolate, warmed our stinging red hands through mitts by the bonfire and went on a horse-drawn sleighride through the trees.
The smell of the balsam fir tree now wafts through our living room. The temperature has plummeted to minus twenty degrees and colder; outside is crisp and clean with sharp slivers of crystal suspended in the air. A strong wind blows directly from the wild lands north of here telling us this old world of ours is still capable of powerful force which still stretches far beyond our reach and control.
Our Italian neighbour's crystal earrings sparkled by the Christmas tree as she sipped her wine in our living room last night.
Christmas around Prince George and BC's northen interior dwells in log cabins, woodstoves, forests, horse drawn sleigh rides under thick woolen blankets, sparkling snow, red-cheeked children skating on lake surface rinks and the sharp lines of cross country ski trails disappearing through the snow-laden forests spread out before us. The midday sun pauses low in the sky, brightening the landscape, not quite penetrating the chill. The magic of a northern Canadian Christmas. I want my son to experience these cozy magical Canadian phenomena for his whole life.
In recent months, Canadian politicians have traveled the globe trying to sell our country as an exporter of the black dirty fuels that are driving humans and much of the world to the brink of oblivion: coal and crude oil. We have the resources, you have the knowledge, they tell other parts of the world. Our black smudge soul reaching out to the world as we become something we never were, and the land is a place for resource exploitation rather than a precious home as it once was. Every branch and leaf is sacred, so too the passing breezes that blow through.
The federal government-appointed review panel has also been announced for the oil and condensate twin pipelines a major oil pipeline company wants to put through here, on its journey from the Alberta tar sands to the Kitimat coast. The Canadian government has plans to expand Canada's oil market to Asia and we stand right on the route of them being able to do so. The tar sands' ugliness begins to creep this way.
First Nations people have already decried the process, and the vice chief of the local tribal council traveled to the climate talks in Copenhagen to talk about the pipeline, the concerns about the tar sands and how his people's Aboriginal rights have been ignored. The pipeline would cross a thousand rivers and streams between Alberta and the coast, and one of them is the Stuart River, a major tributary of the Nechako River that flows into the Fraser here in Prince George.
I grew up on the banks of the Nechako River, and the cheery chatting but haunting call of the geese migrating through shadowed my childhood years. The calendar's months marked by the passing of the geese.
And I have traveled along the Nechako River's banks on the historic train route headed west. From the train I have watched the white trumpeter swans gracefully swimming there, at peace, completely oblivious of the dark oily stain of spills that would threaten them from upstream. Swans are of the ethereal realm of angel hymns sung by warm candle glow somewhere in the midst of this sparkling-moon snow-tucked hushed wild land that still despite what dark industrial threats may lurk, remains magical and mysterious. This land holds a gentle power that only the most patient observers fully come to understand.
The churches last Sunday rang their bells through the crisp sharp air 350 times for Copenhagen. 350 parts per million, the safe level of carbon into the atmosphere. Church bells rising into this same air, speaking to carbon of hope, of people's hope for a bright shiny new world.
The thermostat read minus 30 earlier today, minus 40 with the windchill. We are in northern Canada, in our down jackets and Canadian-made Baffin boots.
It is where we want to stay.
The other night we went downtown together to get library books. Outside the city had put up Christmas lights which cast a warm glow across the snow and ice of the downtown courtyard. My son is drawn to these cheery lights. We imagine these lights are the magical lights of Santa's home far north at the North Pole. Indeed the trees in the surrounding hills and stretching up to nearby Connaught Hill where the City has erected a Christmas lights display twinkle with ice crystals and a haunting white layer of hoar frost.
When it starts to snow, a perfectly formed snowflake lands on my black glove. I remember as a child letting the snowflakes land on my gloves, and studying many of them, one by one, as they landed, each in a beautifully formed unique pattern. I show the snowflake patterns to my son, and we look up, the falling snow tickling our faces as it falls from high above, from that mysterious place of air that has become so complicated and yet remains so simple.
I do not ever want to lose these northern snowflakes. I do not want them to be replaced by distorted ice blobs or driving sleet of global warming. I will fight for the perfectly formed snowflakes and fluffy northern snow.
In my Christmas dream, my young son is pretending to be a Christmas elf skiing through the snow, heading across the magic lands of the North Pole. He has entered this special land that only children can visit because they dwell where magic is still possible everywhere. He tells me about the other elves he spots, those figures darting into the Prince George Civic Centre for a meeting. Those figures entering Santa's home to create the toys for the children. Later he will sit on Santa's knee by the old trains at the Prince George Railway Museum and tell him he will leave chocolate chip cookies out for him. He will tell Santa about the toy he wants.
Toys that will not hurt the environment with their plastic and styrofoam wrap and mass production waste because they are made instead by elves in a magic land where there is no such thing as waste and pollution. They make the toys far beyond the place where the polar bears now slip through the sea ice into the vast waters of the Arctic Ocean.
Somewhere up there, high above the spruce trees and snow and polar bears' caves, the magical north pole still needs to exist. Santa lives in Canada with the postal code HO HO HO. This northern magic is a legacy we offer to the world, more valuable than any crude oil we could ever hope to export.
And a Merry Christmas still rings out from the mysterious vast snowy lands of northern Canada.
The smell of the balsam fir tree now wafts through our living room. The temperature has plummeted to minus twenty degrees and colder; outside is crisp and clean with sharp slivers of crystal suspended in the air. A strong wind blows directly from the wild lands north of here telling us this old world of ours is still capable of powerful force which still stretches far beyond our reach and control.
Our Italian neighbour's crystal earrings sparkled by the Christmas tree as she sipped her wine in our living room last night.
Christmas around Prince George and BC's northen interior dwells in log cabins, woodstoves, forests, horse drawn sleigh rides under thick woolen blankets, sparkling snow, red-cheeked children skating on lake surface rinks and the sharp lines of cross country ski trails disappearing through the snow-laden forests spread out before us. The midday sun pauses low in the sky, brightening the landscape, not quite penetrating the chill. The magic of a northern Canadian Christmas. I want my son to experience these cozy magical Canadian phenomena for his whole life.
In recent months, Canadian politicians have traveled the globe trying to sell our country as an exporter of the black dirty fuels that are driving humans and much of the world to the brink of oblivion: coal and crude oil. We have the resources, you have the knowledge, they tell other parts of the world. Our black smudge soul reaching out to the world as we become something we never were, and the land is a place for resource exploitation rather than a precious home as it once was. Every branch and leaf is sacred, so too the passing breezes that blow through.
The federal government-appointed review panel has also been announced for the oil and condensate twin pipelines a major oil pipeline company wants to put through here, on its journey from the Alberta tar sands to the Kitimat coast. The Canadian government has plans to expand Canada's oil market to Asia and we stand right on the route of them being able to do so. The tar sands' ugliness begins to creep this way.
First Nations people have already decried the process, and the vice chief of the local tribal council traveled to the climate talks in Copenhagen to talk about the pipeline, the concerns about the tar sands and how his people's Aboriginal rights have been ignored. The pipeline would cross a thousand rivers and streams between Alberta and the coast, and one of them is the Stuart River, a major tributary of the Nechako River that flows into the Fraser here in Prince George.
I grew up on the banks of the Nechako River, and the cheery chatting but haunting call of the geese migrating through shadowed my childhood years. The calendar's months marked by the passing of the geese.
And I have traveled along the Nechako River's banks on the historic train route headed west. From the train I have watched the white trumpeter swans gracefully swimming there, at peace, completely oblivious of the dark oily stain of spills that would threaten them from upstream. Swans are of the ethereal realm of angel hymns sung by warm candle glow somewhere in the midst of this sparkling-moon snow-tucked hushed wild land that still despite what dark industrial threats may lurk, remains magical and mysterious. This land holds a gentle power that only the most patient observers fully come to understand.
The churches last Sunday rang their bells through the crisp sharp air 350 times for Copenhagen. 350 parts per million, the safe level of carbon into the atmosphere. Church bells rising into this same air, speaking to carbon of hope, of people's hope for a bright shiny new world.
The thermostat read minus 30 earlier today, minus 40 with the windchill. We are in northern Canada, in our down jackets and Canadian-made Baffin boots.
It is where we want to stay.
The other night we went downtown together to get library books. Outside the city had put up Christmas lights which cast a warm glow across the snow and ice of the downtown courtyard. My son is drawn to these cheery lights. We imagine these lights are the magical lights of Santa's home far north at the North Pole. Indeed the trees in the surrounding hills and stretching up to nearby Connaught Hill where the City has erected a Christmas lights display twinkle with ice crystals and a haunting white layer of hoar frost.
When it starts to snow, a perfectly formed snowflake lands on my black glove. I remember as a child letting the snowflakes land on my gloves, and studying many of them, one by one, as they landed, each in a beautifully formed unique pattern. I show the snowflake patterns to my son, and we look up, the falling snow tickling our faces as it falls from high above, from that mysterious place of air that has become so complicated and yet remains so simple.
I do not ever want to lose these northern snowflakes. I do not want them to be replaced by distorted ice blobs or driving sleet of global warming. I will fight for the perfectly formed snowflakes and fluffy northern snow.
In my Christmas dream, my young son is pretending to be a Christmas elf skiing through the snow, heading across the magic lands of the North Pole. He has entered this special land that only children can visit because they dwell where magic is still possible everywhere. He tells me about the other elves he spots, those figures darting into the Prince George Civic Centre for a meeting. Those figures entering Santa's home to create the toys for the children. Later he will sit on Santa's knee by the old trains at the Prince George Railway Museum and tell him he will leave chocolate chip cookies out for him. He will tell Santa about the toy he wants.
Toys that will not hurt the environment with their plastic and styrofoam wrap and mass production waste because they are made instead by elves in a magic land where there is no such thing as waste and pollution. They make the toys far beyond the place where the polar bears now slip through the sea ice into the vast waters of the Arctic Ocean.
Somewhere up there, high above the spruce trees and snow and polar bears' caves, the magical north pole still needs to exist. Santa lives in Canada with the postal code HO HO HO. This northern magic is a legacy we offer to the world, more valuable than any crude oil we could ever hope to export.
And a Merry Christmas still rings out from the mysterious vast snowy lands of northern Canada.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Happy Winter Solstice
the shortest day of the year was greeted by buckets of snowflakes landing on our heads, mitts, cars and houses today. Went out for a magical cross country ski this evening through snow laden trees . . . skiing by ambient light reflected by the white surface of the snow is indeed a wondrous experience. I never want to lose our winters. Meanwhile there was a lantern walk downtown Prince George this evening to honour the solstice.
Winter Solstice, the time for inner reflection . . . so I probably should not blog about it . . .
but happy solstice to one, to all.
Coziest time of the year before the light begins to return.
Winter Solstice, the time for inner reflection . . . so I probably should not blog about it . . .
but happy solstice to one, to all.
Coziest time of the year before the light begins to return.
Monday, December 14, 2009
letter to Enbridge (re: Northern Gateway proposed pipeline) from Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance (s2s.ca), Prince George BC
Enbridge Inc.
3000 ‐ 425 1st Street S.W.
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 3L8
BY REGISTERED MAIL
December 14, 2009
To Whom it May Concern:
RE: NORTHERN GATEWAY PIPELINE PROJECT
COMMENTS SUBMITTED FOR INCLUSION IN ENBRIDGE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD RECORD ‐ PRINCE GEORGE, BC
We are a newly formed citizens' group, based in Prince George, BC, opposed to the Northern Gateway oil pipeline project. To date, we have over 600 people opposed to the oil pipeline project and our support is growing daily.
In part we are responding to articles in the Prince George Citizen, November 27, 2009and Prince George Free Press, December 3, 2009 wherein Enbridge spokespeople are quoted as saying they hope this group (Sea 2 Sands Conservation Alliance) brings its concerns to Enbridge's Community Advisory Board.
We would like to be on record as saying that we do not view the Enbridge‐run Community Advisory Boards as an open public consultation.
The Enbridge website www.northerngateway.ca gives no details about the Community Advisory Board meetings. People must apply to attend and Enbridge screens the applicants. The meetings are not widely advertised. The media is excluded. In past sessions, Enbridge facilitators guide and control the discussions. The possibility of NO PIPELINE is not on the table at these meetings.
Reasons for our concerns and our opposition are as follows:
1. Broader Environmental Implications
a) Climate change ‐ governments are currently meeting in Copenhagen attempting to reach agreements to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the
potentially devastating impacts predicted by the scientific community. A majority of Canadians are in support of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Building an oil pipeline to sell Canada's water and energy‐intensive bitumen to countries such as China and India is incongruous with the goals of the Copenhagen meetings. It is also incongruous with all international climate talks being held around the world. In addition, the Canadian tar sands are known to be the highest growing source of carbon emissions in Canada and the primary impediment for Canada to bring about substantial reductions to carbon emissions. There is a complete disconnect between a reduction of carbon emissions and construction of a pipeline to export Canada's crude oil. Our generation has a significant moral responsibility to work toward reducing carbon emissions if there is even a remote chance that human‐generated emissions are causing the planet's weather systems to become destabilized.
b) Destructiveness of the tar sands ‐ The Canadian tar sands are receiving international criticism for the intense damage they impose on the local environment and those living in close proximity to them. In fact, Canada is losing its internationally respected reputation as a peaceful, responsible country because of this dirty source of oil; a reputation that took nearly 150 years to build. Critics of the tar sands include those from local indigenous people to heads of state around the world to global religious leaders. Some concerns related to the tar sands are:
i) detrimental impact on local First Nations traditional uses of the land
ii) elevated rates of cancer, birth defects, haemolytic anaemia and liver damage in people living in close proximity to (especially downstream) the tar sands
iii) immense amounts of water and natural gas utilized to extract bitumen
iv) destruction of boreal birds' breeding grounds
v) deaths and injury to local wildlife
vi) ineffective restoration of affected lands
The Enbridge Northern Gateway project is inextricably linked to the continued expansion of the tar sands. To support this pipeline is unacceptable.
Canada's economy evolves to the use of cleaner sources of energy. Sea 2 Sands feels that the sooner we move in that direction, the better.
2. Risk of oil spills along the Route ‐ both in terms of the pipelines and the oil tanker traffic that would result from construction of the port at Kitimat Enbridge states that there is a risk of oil spills. "Pipeline leaks are an inherent risk of operations" (Enbridge Annual Report 2008). This project would cross approximately
1000 streams and numerous major rivers including the Stuart River, a tributary of the Nechako River, which flows through the City of Prince George. Spills entering Prince George's watershed would have serious consequences for domestic and industrial water supplies. The citizens of British Columbia have already been subject to a substantial spill from a pipeline on the Pine River in August 2000. That spill impacted fish and wildlife habitat, and had significant negative effects on the drinking water in Chetwynd. The rivers crossed by this proposed pipeline are tributaries of the two major river systems of British Columbia, the Fraser and the Skeena. These watersheds represent some of the most valuable salmon habitat in the world. In recent years it has become apparent that salmon stocks on both rivers (Skeena and Fraser) are already compromised. The risk of even one oil spill could cause such damage as to destroy the few salmon we have left. A report has been produced outlining the potential negative effects of oil on salmon (http://bc.pembina.org/pub/1894). Enbridge cannot guarantee there would be no spills along this pipeline nor could they guarantee a timely response in the event of a spill in the remote and rugged territory the pipeline will cross, particularly during extreme weather conditions. Even the risk of one spill is too much in the context of these fragile inland ecosystems. The Carrier Sekani Tribal Council has conducted further research addressing some of these issues on the local level more specifically, and have been documented in their Aboriginal Interest and Use Study, which can be found at (http://www.cstc.bc.ca/cstc/67/enbridge).
The risk of oil tanker spills in the Douglas Channel and the northwest coast is also considerable and of serious concern. Wildlife values in this area are significant on a global scale. For example, 28 of British Columbia's 84 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) lie within 250 kilometres of the mouth of Douglas Channel (http://www.bsc‐eoc.org/iba/regional.jsp?region=BC). Many of these IBAs support significant breeding populations of colonial seabirds. In addition to seabirds, the entire North Pacific population of grey whales passes through these waters during their annual migration from their breeding grounds in Mexico to their summer feeding grounds near Alaska. These waters are also migratory pathways for west coast salmon populations. British Columbia's recent experience with the spill of diesel fuel when the ferry, Queen of the North, sank in 2006 saw a number of issues indicating what would happen should a spill of crude oil occur. First and foremost was how difficult it was to physically contain even a small spill of a light and relatively benign substance in and around the rugged coastline for northern BC. Any spill from tankers moving oil from Kitimat would have unfathomable impacts to this extensive coastal area.
3. Socio‐Economic Costs Associated with Constructing the Pipeline: To First Nations people: Resource extraction has created divisiveness between various First Nations communities and between First Nations and non First Nations communities. It is time for this divisiveness to end. Many of the First Nations communities along the route of this pipeline have strongly stated their opposition. The traditional uses of the land would be severely compromised. As various First Nations groups, including the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, have pointed out, the social costs/risks are simply too high in the face of long‐standing cultural traditions. As we strive to move toward more sustainable, low‐carbon, local‐based economies, the wisdom of Aboriginal elders and traditional uses of the land become increasingly vital. We cannot afford to further place at risk these valuable cultural resources. Please watch the following series of videos for more information about the profound insights of local First Nations people into the broader issues at stake: http://www.youtube.com/user/CIERworld#p/u/0/s7Uk2NjuLCA. To all communities along the route: Northern communities need long‐lasting, resilient economic bases. What we do not need is short‐term employment projects that come with significant long‐term environmental and social costs. For years northern British Columbians have endured a boom and bust, raw resource extraction economy, which has led families into cycles of despair during the hard times. Many social science studies point to the abject social consequences of relying heavily on raw resource extraction and short‐term industrial economic foundations. Recently there are various projects around the area focused on evolving beyond the boom and bust raw resource extraction mentality that has not served people well during times of recession in the past. We must build locally based sustainable economic opportunities; to do this requires healthy land and water resources. Any project — such as the oil pipeline and its associated spill risks — does not fit with this kind of vision for future northern economic development. Northerners must develop these visions. There are other economic activities in the north that depend on healthy, uncontaminated watersheds and even one oil spill risk would jeopardize the viability of these pursuits. One example is tourism: northern British Columbia's tourism base is founded on offering wilderness experiences, and a pristine environment is a cornerstone of these economic endeavours. Hunting and fishing are other examples.
One study conducted in the Skeena watershed reported that wild salmon fisheries generate close to $110 million in direct economic activity (http://northwestinstitute.ca/downloads/IBM_skeena_report_06.pdf). Many of our members have deep and longstanding roots in the northern interior of British Columbia. Most have lived in these communities for many years, have strong community ties and care deeply about this area. These are serious issues for us and many other residents along the proposed route. The opposition of Sea 2 Sands members was not formed without thought and we will continue to strongly oppose this project. The vision for Northern British Columbia that Enbridge is proposing by way of the Northern Gateway project is contradictory to the values of our members and the stewardship role that we share as residents of this region. We ask that you consider abandoning the Northern Gateway project and continue to pursue more viable and sustainable methods of energy production and distribution. Now, more than ever, we need leaders in the development of sustainable energy alternatives. You have an extraordinary opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to the health and prosperity of your company, your shareholders, and our nation. Please do not waste it.
Sincerely,
Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance
per:
Josh DeLeenheer
Mary MacDonald
Spokespeople
cc:
Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Hon. Jim Prentice, Canada Environment Minister
Hon. Gordon Campbell, Premier of British Columbia
Hereditary and Elected B.C. First Nations Chiefs
Dick Harris, MP, Cariboo‐Prince George
Jay Hill, MP, Prince George‐Peace River
Nathan Cullen, MP, Skeena‐Bulkley Valley
Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance Page 6 of 6
Hon. Shirley Bond, MLA, Prince George‐Valemount & British Columbia Minister of Transportation & Infrastructure
Hon. Pat Bell, MLA, Prince George North & British Columbia Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Integrated Land Management Bureau
Hon. Blair Lekstrom, MLA, Peace River South & British Columbia Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources
John Rustad, MLA, Nechako Lakes
Hon. Dan Rogers, Mayor of City of Prince George
Prince George City Council
Tim McEwan, President & CEO, Initiatives Prince George
Prince George Media
3000 ‐ 425 1st Street S.W.
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 3L8
BY REGISTERED MAIL
December 14, 2009
To Whom it May Concern:
RE: NORTHERN GATEWAY PIPELINE PROJECT
COMMENTS SUBMITTED FOR INCLUSION IN ENBRIDGE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD RECORD ‐ PRINCE GEORGE, BC
We are a newly formed citizens' group, based in Prince George, BC, opposed to the Northern Gateway oil pipeline project. To date, we have over 600 people opposed to the oil pipeline project and our support is growing daily.
In part we are responding to articles in the Prince George Citizen, November 27, 2009and Prince George Free Press, December 3, 2009 wherein Enbridge spokespeople are quoted as saying they hope this group (Sea 2 Sands Conservation Alliance) brings its concerns to Enbridge's Community Advisory Board.
We would like to be on record as saying that we do not view the Enbridge‐run Community Advisory Boards as an open public consultation.
The Enbridge website www.northerngateway.ca gives no details about the Community Advisory Board meetings. People must apply to attend and Enbridge screens the applicants. The meetings are not widely advertised. The media is excluded. In past sessions, Enbridge facilitators guide and control the discussions. The possibility of NO PIPELINE is not on the table at these meetings.
Reasons for our concerns and our opposition are as follows:
1. Broader Environmental Implications
a) Climate change ‐ governments are currently meeting in Copenhagen attempting to reach agreements to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the
potentially devastating impacts predicted by the scientific community. A majority of Canadians are in support of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Building an oil pipeline to sell Canada's water and energy‐intensive bitumen to countries such as China and India is incongruous with the goals of the Copenhagen meetings. It is also incongruous with all international climate talks being held around the world. In addition, the Canadian tar sands are known to be the highest growing source of carbon emissions in Canada and the primary impediment for Canada to bring about substantial reductions to carbon emissions. There is a complete disconnect between a reduction of carbon emissions and construction of a pipeline to export Canada's crude oil. Our generation has a significant moral responsibility to work toward reducing carbon emissions if there is even a remote chance that human‐generated emissions are causing the planet's weather systems to become destabilized.
b) Destructiveness of the tar sands ‐ The Canadian tar sands are receiving international criticism for the intense damage they impose on the local environment and those living in close proximity to them. In fact, Canada is losing its internationally respected reputation as a peaceful, responsible country because of this dirty source of oil; a reputation that took nearly 150 years to build. Critics of the tar sands include those from local indigenous people to heads of state around the world to global religious leaders. Some concerns related to the tar sands are:
i) detrimental impact on local First Nations traditional uses of the land
ii) elevated rates of cancer, birth defects, haemolytic anaemia and liver damage in people living in close proximity to (especially downstream) the tar sands
iii) immense amounts of water and natural gas utilized to extract bitumen
iv) destruction of boreal birds' breeding grounds
v) deaths and injury to local wildlife
vi) ineffective restoration of affected lands
The Enbridge Northern Gateway project is inextricably linked to the continued expansion of the tar sands. To support this pipeline is unacceptable.
Canada's economy evolves to the use of cleaner sources of energy. Sea 2 Sands feels that the sooner we move in that direction, the better.
2. Risk of oil spills along the Route ‐ both in terms of the pipelines and the oil tanker traffic that would result from construction of the port at Kitimat Enbridge states that there is a risk of oil spills. "Pipeline leaks are an inherent risk of operations" (Enbridge Annual Report 2008). This project would cross approximately
1000 streams and numerous major rivers including the Stuart River, a tributary of the Nechako River, which flows through the City of Prince George. Spills entering Prince George's watershed would have serious consequences for domestic and industrial water supplies. The citizens of British Columbia have already been subject to a substantial spill from a pipeline on the Pine River in August 2000. That spill impacted fish and wildlife habitat, and had significant negative effects on the drinking water in Chetwynd. The rivers crossed by this proposed pipeline are tributaries of the two major river systems of British Columbia, the Fraser and the Skeena. These watersheds represent some of the most valuable salmon habitat in the world. In recent years it has become apparent that salmon stocks on both rivers (Skeena and Fraser) are already compromised. The risk of even one oil spill could cause such damage as to destroy the few salmon we have left. A report has been produced outlining the potential negative effects of oil on salmon (http://bc.pembina.org/pub/1894). Enbridge cannot guarantee there would be no spills along this pipeline nor could they guarantee a timely response in the event of a spill in the remote and rugged territory the pipeline will cross, particularly during extreme weather conditions. Even the risk of one spill is too much in the context of these fragile inland ecosystems. The Carrier Sekani Tribal Council has conducted further research addressing some of these issues on the local level more specifically, and have been documented in their Aboriginal Interest and Use Study, which can be found at (http://www.cstc.bc.ca/cstc/67/enbridge).
The risk of oil tanker spills in the Douglas Channel and the northwest coast is also considerable and of serious concern. Wildlife values in this area are significant on a global scale. For example, 28 of British Columbia's 84 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) lie within 250 kilometres of the mouth of Douglas Channel (http://www.bsc‐eoc.org/iba/regional.jsp?region=BC). Many of these IBAs support significant breeding populations of colonial seabirds. In addition to seabirds, the entire North Pacific population of grey whales passes through these waters during their annual migration from their breeding grounds in Mexico to their summer feeding grounds near Alaska. These waters are also migratory pathways for west coast salmon populations. British Columbia's recent experience with the spill of diesel fuel when the ferry, Queen of the North, sank in 2006 saw a number of issues indicating what would happen should a spill of crude oil occur. First and foremost was how difficult it was to physically contain even a small spill of a light and relatively benign substance in and around the rugged coastline for northern BC. Any spill from tankers moving oil from Kitimat would have unfathomable impacts to this extensive coastal area.
3. Socio‐Economic Costs Associated with Constructing the Pipeline: To First Nations people: Resource extraction has created divisiveness between various First Nations communities and between First Nations and non First Nations communities. It is time for this divisiveness to end. Many of the First Nations communities along the route of this pipeline have strongly stated their opposition. The traditional uses of the land would be severely compromised. As various First Nations groups, including the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, have pointed out, the social costs/risks are simply too high in the face of long‐standing cultural traditions. As we strive to move toward more sustainable, low‐carbon, local‐based economies, the wisdom of Aboriginal elders and traditional uses of the land become increasingly vital. We cannot afford to further place at risk these valuable cultural resources. Please watch the following series of videos for more information about the profound insights of local First Nations people into the broader issues at stake: http://www.youtube.com/user/CIERworld#p/u/0/s7Uk2NjuLCA. To all communities along the route: Northern communities need long‐lasting, resilient economic bases. What we do not need is short‐term employment projects that come with significant long‐term environmental and social costs. For years northern British Columbians have endured a boom and bust, raw resource extraction economy, which has led families into cycles of despair during the hard times. Many social science studies point to the abject social consequences of relying heavily on raw resource extraction and short‐term industrial economic foundations. Recently there are various projects around the area focused on evolving beyond the boom and bust raw resource extraction mentality that has not served people well during times of recession in the past. We must build locally based sustainable economic opportunities; to do this requires healthy land and water resources. Any project — such as the oil pipeline and its associated spill risks — does not fit with this kind of vision for future northern economic development. Northerners must develop these visions. There are other economic activities in the north that depend on healthy, uncontaminated watersheds and even one oil spill risk would jeopardize the viability of these pursuits. One example is tourism: northern British Columbia's tourism base is founded on offering wilderness experiences, and a pristine environment is a cornerstone of these economic endeavours. Hunting and fishing are other examples.
One study conducted in the Skeena watershed reported that wild salmon fisheries generate close to $110 million in direct economic activity (http://northwestinstitute.ca/downloads/IBM_skeena_report_06.pdf). Many of our members have deep and longstanding roots in the northern interior of British Columbia. Most have lived in these communities for many years, have strong community ties and care deeply about this area. These are serious issues for us and many other residents along the proposed route. The opposition of Sea 2 Sands members was not formed without thought and we will continue to strongly oppose this project. The vision for Northern British Columbia that Enbridge is proposing by way of the Northern Gateway project is contradictory to the values of our members and the stewardship role that we share as residents of this region. We ask that you consider abandoning the Northern Gateway project and continue to pursue more viable and sustainable methods of energy production and distribution. Now, more than ever, we need leaders in the development of sustainable energy alternatives. You have an extraordinary opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to the health and prosperity of your company, your shareholders, and our nation. Please do not waste it.
Sincerely,
Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance
per:
Josh DeLeenheer
Mary MacDonald
Spokespeople
cc:
Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Hon. Jim Prentice, Canada Environment Minister
Hon. Gordon Campbell, Premier of British Columbia
Hereditary and Elected B.C. First Nations Chiefs
Dick Harris, MP, Cariboo‐Prince George
Jay Hill, MP, Prince George‐Peace River
Nathan Cullen, MP, Skeena‐Bulkley Valley
Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance Page 6 of 6
Hon. Shirley Bond, MLA, Prince George‐Valemount & British Columbia Minister of Transportation & Infrastructure
Hon. Pat Bell, MLA, Prince George North & British Columbia Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Integrated Land Management Bureau
Hon. Blair Lekstrom, MLA, Peace River South & British Columbia Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources
John Rustad, MLA, Nechako Lakes
Hon. Dan Rogers, Mayor of City of Prince George
Prince George City Council
Tim McEwan, President & CEO, Initiatives Prince George
Prince George Media
Thursday, December 10, 2009
International Human Rights day & a Canadian action item
HAPPY INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY. . .
and tying in very much with the climate talks now happening in Copenhagen (and Canada's black oil smudge mark. . . ) here is an action item issued by Amnesty International.
Yes, human rights and environment go very much hand in hand. . .
*************************
CANADA (Alberta): Justice overdue for the Lubicon Cree
“All we’re asking is to be a viable community and not dependent on any government. We have that right to be able to say to our kids and our grandchildren, ‘Here’s a land base and here you’re going to be able to live somewhat like the rest of the people in Canada.’”
- Dwight Gladue, in the new Amnesty International film, Our Land, My People: The Struggle of the Lubicon Cree
Corporations have removed billions of dollars worth of oil and gas from the lands of the Lubicon Cree in northern Alberta. The Lubicon, however, live in poverty. Their economy and way of life have been nearly wiped out by the destruction of animal habitat. The government has never provided basic services, like clean water and sanitation.
The Lubicon were left out of a treaty that the federal government negotiated with other Indigenous peoples in the region in 1899. There is still no agreement between the Lubicon and the federal and provincial governments over the ownership and management of their lands and resources. The federal and provincial governments have acknowledged the need to negotiate a land settlement. However, there have been no negotiations since 2003.
In the meantime, the provincial government is allowing oil and gas development to proceed at an astonishing pace on all but a few corners of Lubicon land. The Lubicon have estimated that there are more than four oil and gas wells for every Lubicon person. Now the Lubicon territory is being targeted for tar sands development, which raises more concerns about impacts on the environment.
No other human rights case in Canada has been so often condemned by United Nations human rights bodies.
Amnesty International calls on the federal government to enter into meaningful negotiations with the Lubicon so that a settlement can be reached that will protect their rights under national and international law. Until such a settlement is reached, Amnesty International urges the Province of Alberta not to license any more oil or gas wells on Lubicon land unless the Lubicon people approve.
Please write to Alberta’s premier.
Describe who you are.
Note that United Nations human rights experts have expressed concern many times about the devastating effects that oil and gas development have on the rights of the Lubicon Cree, including their livelihoods, culture, and way of life.
Urge the Government of Alberta to ensure that, until the Lubicon land dispute has been settled, it will permit no new oil and gas development on Lubicon land unless the Lubicon Cree agree to it.
Write to:
The Honourable Ed Stelmach
Premier of Alberta
307 Legislature Building
10800 – 97th Avenue
Edmonton, AB T5K 2B6
Start your letter:
Dear Premier Stelmach
Postage: 54 cents
Fax: (780) 427-1349
Take action online at www.amnesty.ca/lubicon.
This new Amnesty International website features an online version of the film ‘Our Land, My People,’ background information on the situation of the Lubicon Cree, and lots of opportunities to take action. Visit the website to
send an email to the premier of Alberta
join our photo petition
get your friends and colleagues involved in the campaign.
and tying in very much with the climate talks now happening in Copenhagen (and Canada's black oil smudge mark. . . ) here is an action item issued by Amnesty International.
Yes, human rights and environment go very much hand in hand. . .
*************************
CANADA (Alberta): Justice overdue for the Lubicon Cree
“All we’re asking is to be a viable community and not dependent on any government. We have that right to be able to say to our kids and our grandchildren, ‘Here’s a land base and here you’re going to be able to live somewhat like the rest of the people in Canada.’”
- Dwight Gladue, in the new Amnesty International film, Our Land, My People: The Struggle of the Lubicon Cree
Corporations have removed billions of dollars worth of oil and gas from the lands of the Lubicon Cree in northern Alberta. The Lubicon, however, live in poverty. Their economy and way of life have been nearly wiped out by the destruction of animal habitat. The government has never provided basic services, like clean water and sanitation.
The Lubicon were left out of a treaty that the federal government negotiated with other Indigenous peoples in the region in 1899. There is still no agreement between the Lubicon and the federal and provincial governments over the ownership and management of their lands and resources. The federal and provincial governments have acknowledged the need to negotiate a land settlement. However, there have been no negotiations since 2003.
In the meantime, the provincial government is allowing oil and gas development to proceed at an astonishing pace on all but a few corners of Lubicon land. The Lubicon have estimated that there are more than four oil and gas wells for every Lubicon person. Now the Lubicon territory is being targeted for tar sands development, which raises more concerns about impacts on the environment.
No other human rights case in Canada has been so often condemned by United Nations human rights bodies.
Amnesty International calls on the federal government to enter into meaningful negotiations with the Lubicon so that a settlement can be reached that will protect their rights under national and international law. Until such a settlement is reached, Amnesty International urges the Province of Alberta not to license any more oil or gas wells on Lubicon land unless the Lubicon people approve.
Please write to Alberta’s premier.
Describe who you are.
Note that United Nations human rights experts have expressed concern many times about the devastating effects that oil and gas development have on the rights of the Lubicon Cree, including their livelihoods, culture, and way of life.
Urge the Government of Alberta to ensure that, until the Lubicon land dispute has been settled, it will permit no new oil and gas development on Lubicon land unless the Lubicon Cree agree to it.
Write to:
The Honourable Ed Stelmach
Premier of Alberta
307 Legislature Building
10800 – 97th Avenue
Edmonton, AB T5K 2B6
Start your letter:
Dear Premier Stelmach
Postage: 54 cents
Fax: (780) 427-1349
Take action online at www.amnesty.ca/lubicon.
This new Amnesty International website features an online version of the film ‘Our Land, My People,’ background information on the situation of the Lubicon Cree, and lots of opportunities to take action. Visit the website to
send an email to the premier of Alberta
join our photo petition
get your friends and colleagues involved in the campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)