The Dominion - environment

"Stand With Us to Fight"

Tim McSorley — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:42:20 +0000

Hundreds protest Enbridge pipeline and oil tankers at Heiltsuk-led rally

VANCOUVER—Hundreds of people from First Nations, environmental and community organizations, and others from Vancouver and beyond, rallied against Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline and coastal oil supertanker traffic earlier today, filling the Vancouver Art Gallery grounds.

A march led by the Heiltsuk Nation of the Central Coast departed from the Coastal First Nations office at Granville and Hastings Streets and wound its way through the downtown business district to join another group waiting at the Vancouver Art Gallery. The rally marked the 23rd anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska, which spilled hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil on March 24, 1989.

"Only seven percent of that oil was cleaned up," said Coastal First Nations Executive Director Art Sterritt of the Exxon Valdez spill. "Our well-being as First Nations is dependent on our lands, on our waters.

“Our people, the Heiltsuk people, have always had a position: No oil tankers on the coast! That position has never changed,” Heiltsuk elder Edwin Newman said, addressing the rally. “We are pleading with our coastal neighbours to stand with us to fight this issue.”

“When we stand together, we are a powerful people,” added Newman, whose call for unity was echoed by speaker after speaker.

"We are Canada's energy union and we stand with you on this issue," Jim Britton, Western Region Vice President of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers' Union (CEP) told the crowd. "We do not support Enbridge. We do not support Northern Gateway...This isn't just about oil. This is about us. This is about our communities."

If built, the proposed 1,200-kilometre Northern Gateway oil pipeline would transport a half-million barrels of tar sands bitumen from Alberta to Kitimat, BC. The proposed twin pipelines' 30-metre-wide right-of-way would cross hundreds of rivers, streams and watersheds along its route through numerous unceded Indigenous territories. The crude oil would then be transported on massive oil tankers through delicate coastal ecosystems and Indigenous territories and finally across the Pacific to Asian markets.

"The world that we have lived in for the past 10,000 years is shifting around us," Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, an organization dedicated to building a global movement against climate change, told the rally, situating the coastal struggle against pipelines and tankers within the global climate justice movement. "The planet is starting to become unglued because we are raising the temperature."

"We know, we absolutely know that this fight is going to completely eclipse the [fight for] Clayoquot Sound," Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs said. "We know that this fight is going to intensify."

While the struggle against Northern Gateway has garnered massive support and international attention, it is not the only pipeline project facing opposition in the province. Grassroots Wet'suwet'en community activists have been resisting the proposed Pacific Trails natural gas pipeline that would connect to a new Liquefied Natural Gas port on the Central Coast. The project would traverse the unceded lands of many of the same First Nations opposing the Enbridge project. In its case, however, the elected leadership of several First Nations along the route are supporting the Pacific Trails project.

Another lesser-known pipeline project already runs through the lower mainland. The Kinder Morgan oil pipeline brings tar sands crude across the Rockies along its Trans Mountain pipeline to terminals in both Burnaby and Washington State. Only two months ago there was a spill in Abbotsford, BC, following a major oil spill at the Burnaby terminal site in 2007.

Kinder Morgan is expected to announce its expansion plans for the pipeline, according to Ben West, Healthy Communities Campaigner for the Wilderness Committee. The company is reportedly looking to increase the quantity of crude transported from 300,000 barrels per day to 600,000 or 700,000.

"Kinder Morgan has been trying to do this as quietly as possible," West told the rally. "We have to stand together to say no to all these projects!"

As the rally wound down after two hours in the rain, the loudest expressions of support were heard for 11-year-old Sliammon First Nation singer-songwriter Ta'Kaiya Blaney. She recalled going to the Enbridge office in Vancouver one year ago to express her opinion about the Northern Gateway pipeline.

"I was escorted out and I was told that if I didn't leave I would be charged for trespassing," Blaney recounted to the ralliers, who showed their support with enthusiastic cheers.

Before performing her song "Shallow Waters," Blaney told the hundreds gathered on the Monday afternoon of the message found in the song: "If we do nothing it will all be gone."

Sandra Cuffe is a writer and aspiring janitor currently living in Vancouver.

This article was originally published by the Vancouver Media Co-op.

Questions? Comments? Drop us a line: info@mediacoop.ca

Heiltsuk Nation elder Edwin Newma

Rally against pipelines at Vancouver Art Gallery

Hogtown, Manitoba

stephlaw — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:03:13 +0000

An investigation into one factory's radical impact on labour and the environment in a prairie town

SASKATOON—The meatpacking industry once provided thousands of Canadian workers with a decent living wage. Thanks in part to globalization the industry now employs far fewer people at wages that have essentially been frozen since the mid-1980s. These days, many meatpacking employees are temporary foreign workers who must sign restrictive contracts with their employer for a chance at attaining Canadian citizenship.

Maple Leaf Consumer Foods’ hog processing plant in Brandon, MB, is the largest such plant in Canada. Employing over 2,200 people, it is the primary economic driver for the booming “Wheat City.” By all accounts, Maple Leaf's facility, opened in 1999, is a modern, world-class processing plant. The facility expanded in 2008 increasing its processing capacity to over 85,000 hogs a week, totaling over 4 million annually. Yet despite its impressive size and modernity, the facility has struggled with retaining workers as the work is hard, repetitive and undesirable for many.

In 2003, the annual turnover rate at Maple Leaf was well over 100 per cent. To satisfy its need for labourers and to reduce turnover, the plant began recruiting workers from abroad. Maple Leaf’s Brandon facility now employs over 2,200 hourly, unionized workers, the majority of whom are either temporary foreign workers or new residents who have passed through the foreign worker program.

“When the turnover was really high, my understanding is that it was in the early stages of the plant, and there’s a lot of growing pains that happen with that,” explains Blake Caruthers, Communications Officer with UFCW Local 832, representing the workers at Maple Leaf. “Once they started using the temporary foreign worker program, people were staying and making Brandon their home.”

The annual turnover rate has been reduced to below 100 per cent, due in part to the hiring contracts that temporary foreign workers and many immigrant workers are required to sign. In order to qualify for fast-tracked landed immigrant status, temporary foreign workers must agree to extend their six month contracts for another two years at Maple Leaf.

“You have a more or less captive labour force, based on immigration,” says Joe Dolecki, Professor of environment and economics at Brandon University. “It [is] much the same as the old indentured servitude model.” Many of the jobs at Maple Leaf in Brandon are unskilled positions, with starting wages hovering around a dollar or two above the provincial minimum of $10 per hour, totalling approximately $19,000 a year. According to Caruthers, skilled labourers at the plant can earn as much as $18 to start, not including shift premiums offered to employees.

In addition to the relatively low wages, the work conditions are far from ideal. “The work is not only hard,” says Dolecki, “it’s physically debilitating for people.”

“It was pretty shitty work conditions,” says Geoff Mann, a former line worker at Maple Leaf in Brandon. “I would stand in one spot, literally, for two hours, then get a coffee break, then stand in the same spot again for two hours, and so forth. A pig leg, a loin, would come down the line, and I would turn it,” he explains. “Turn, turn, turn. It was coming lengthwise, so I would turn it the other way, and it would move on to the next person, who had to do a specific cut.” Mann, who is now 32, kept the job for three months in 2002 before finally quitting to attend Brandon University. “Your feet would just freeze,” Mann recalls as the factory is temperature-controlled to prevent meat from spoiling. “It didn’t matter what kind of socks I wore, my feet would freeze, standing in one spot all the time. You couldn’t walk around to warm them up, you could rock or maybe take one step to the side and back.”

Mann remembers shift premiums being used at the plant as incentives to combat absenteeism. If a worker showed up on time every day for an entire month, they would receive an extra dollar per hour worked. Shift premiums still exist but Mann sees the terms for getting this financial bonus as unrealistic for most workers, especially those with young families or those who are single parents. “Say if you missed one day or [were late for] 15 minutes one day because your kid had a doctor’s appointment, then you’re losing out on that one dollar an hour for 80 hours a pay-cheque, for a whole month,” he said.

Martyn Conrad, who worked at the plant between 2002 and 2003 as a wash bay attendant, recalls a lack of employees and workers not showing up on time or at all. “It was my job to clean and return large, bloodied metal bins that once contained various pig parts, back to the production line,” Conrad explained via email. Conrad kept the job, working from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m., Monday to Friday, for almost a year before finally quitting.

In the early 1980s, managers of many Albertan meatpacking plants aimed to drastically increase profits on the backs of unionized workers. Plant owners followed the lead of their US counterparts, who—through reorganization, hostile takeovers and other extreme tactics—reduced or eliminated many of the gains made by workers since the Second World War. Albertan meatpackers responded with a series of strikes which lec to job cuts, lowered wages and reduced benefits.

In 1986, Peter Pocklington, former owner of Gainers meatpacking and the Edmonton Oilers, told Alberta Report, “The unions are very self-serving.” At a time when union workers were paid around $1800 a month he said, “In Taiwan, workers get $300 a month for the same job. And Taiwan isn’t that far away by air. [Unions] need to find out what the new realities of business are.”

The “new realities” of globalized business are clear to unions in Canada today, as wages and benefits have been scaled back dramatically since the 1980s. The strike-breaking tactics used by Peter Pocklington and the management at Gainers forced the UFCW to accept major concessions at the bargaining table for years to come.

In 1986, hourly wages were between $8 and $12 for meatpackers. Today, at Maple Leaf, hourly wages start at $12 and go to a maximum of $18 for skilled positions. Taking inflation into account, wages are lower now than they were in 1986.

The meatpacking industry itself, like many other industries in Canada, has turned to globalization to fill demand for workers. Since the introduction of the “temporary foreign worker program,” Maple Leaf has successfully recruited workers abroad by offering “fast-tracked” immigrant status to temporary workers who complete their initial contract with the company, and who agree to sign on to a contract extension as landed immigrants.

To accommodate these new workers, UFCW Local 832 has pushed to have the collective bargaining agreement and workplace information available to workers in four languages: English, Spanish, Mandarin, and Ukrainian. “It was the first of its kind in Canada,” Caruthers says of the collective agreement. “You’ve got to give Maple Leaf credit for that, because it was not a hard bargaining issue with them. They understand the value of keeping their employees, our members, informed of their rights, and they realized that the better everybody understands the collective agreement, the better the workforce.”

While the UFCW has been successful — and groundbreaking — in securing rights for its foreign members, temporary foreign workers at other work places in Canada are still without the rights and protections of Maple Leaf employees. Apart from rights to translators, temporary foreign workers only recently secured the right to an expedited arbitration process in cases where they have been terminated, allowing them to remain in Manitoba until the issue is resolved. Agricultural foreign workers in southern Ontario and foreign workers in northern Alberta’s oil patch are often lacking information about worker's rights and without many of the benefits included in the collective bargaining agreement between Maple Leaf and the UFCW.

For the first time in years, Brandon's schools are filling up, houses are being built and new businesses are opening their doors. It is clear that Maple Leaf Commercial Foods’ Brandon plant has positively increased population growth in the community, which has in turn spurred the economy forward at a rate unseen for decades. The vacancy rate in Brandon is now less than 0.5 per cent and the unemployment rate sits at about 2.8 per cent.

Growth comes at a cost that is more difficult to quantify. The success of Intensive Livestock Operations (ILOs) — often disparagingly referred to as “factory farms” — that feed the processing plant in Brandon comes on the backs of small, rural communities already struggling with demographic change and losses of basic services.

Of the 85,000 hogs processed weekly in Brandon, over 60,000 are sourced from hog producers in Manitoba, while the rest come from eastern Saskatchewan. Only Quebec produces more hogs annually than Manitoba. Today, only 10 to 15 per cent of hogs produced in Manitoba are by small-scale “traditional” livestock operators producing less than 1,000 hogs. A transition from small-scale hog production to ILOs began in the 1990s, and has continued to the point where over 50 per cent of hogs in the province come from massive ILOs that house 5,000 or more hogs.

Critics of ILOs charge that such large-scale operations have negative social and environmental impacts on rural communities. Farmers and rural residents in south western Manitoba were concerned about the shift towards ILOs that taking place as early as 1999, presenting arguments before the Citizen’s Hearing on Hog Production and the Environment. Residents had organized the hearing in anticipation of the opening of Brandon’s Maple Leaf plant, the results being presented to the province in early 2000.

“Often you’ll find in rural Manitoba, when ILOs are proposed, a great deal of hype about contributing to the growth of small communities that have experienced population declines,” explains Dolecki, who has written repeatedly on the subject of ILOs. “Almost none of that stuff pans out, almost none of those spin-off benefits pan out.”

Dolecki argues that large-scale operations tend to replace smaller independent operators. This puts further negative pressure on rural communities, which are already struggling to survive. Before the policy landscape shifted to favour ILOs in the 1990s, there were upwards of 4,000 hog producers in the province. Today there are fewer than 800. “Large barns can be run be with only a few people,” says Dolecki, “because they’re so heavily mechanized and computerized. This does not enhance the possibilities of using that as a catalyst for the restoration of rural populations.”

Maple Leaf isn’t the only large-scale hog processing plant in Manitoba. Hytek’s plant in Neepawa processes over 900,000 hogs annually, the bulk of which are Manitoba-raised. In order to process such high numbers of hogs, large meatpacking plants require a constant and reliable supply of animals. By dealing with large-scale producers, hog processors like Maple Leaf are able to guarantee their production goals. However, ILOs, along with other intensive agricultural practices, have been blamed for much of Lake Winnipeg’s current pollution problems, as well as pollution in southern Manitoba and the Interlake region, where intensive hog operations are common.

Since the early 1990s, Lake Winnipeg — Canada’s eighth largest freshwater lake — has faced increasing problems with algal blooms. Algal blooms are fueled by high availability of nitrogen and phosphorus in the aquatic environment. These substances can be introduced into the waters through the addition of sewage and fertilizers in a process known as eutrophication. At the height of summer, many beaches at the south end of the lake are closed due to health concerns related to the algal blooms. Further to the north, fisheries are negatively impacted when eutrophication runs rampant, as it has been in Lake Winnipeg for the past twenty years.

Degradation of the environment as a result of industrial agricultural practices is difficult, if not impossible, to put a price tag on. While the full cost of remediation at this point is unknown, it will undoubtedly be borne by tax payers for years to come.

Currently, the Manitoba government offers up to $26 million annually directly to hog farmers to improve manure management, and to reduce the risk of contaminating water with excess phosphorus and other pollutants, explained Manitoba Agriculture, Food, and Rural Initiatives in an email. This is provided through the Manure Management Financial Assistance Program.

“I did an estimate for the Clean Environment Commission on the environmental subsidy that was involved in hog production as of 2005,” recalls Dolecki, who totaled the estimated cost of clean-up and site reclamation required to deal with the pollution caused by ILOs in Manitoba. “In 2004, I estimated it to be between $125 and $140 million dollars a year, while the net income for the hog production side was about $100 million a year. So, if you made the hog industry pay the full cost of clean up and waste disposal, the industry would have imploded.”

Although The Dominion contacted the senior Human Resources manager at Maple Leaf’s Brandon plant to comment, Maple Leaf refused to participate in an interview.

Sheldon Birnie is a writer, editor, and song & dance man living in Winnipeg, MB.

Questions? Comments? Drop us a line: info@mediacoop.ca.

Maple Leaf Flag

Freezing Feet

Oil Gateway

Tim McSorley — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:05:38 +0000

Stop the Flows is the working title for subMedia.TV's next project. Over the next five years we will document resistance movements that are working towards stopping the flows of hydro carbons, mineral extraction, natural resources and capital, through grassroots and underground organizing. We will publish our dispatches as we complete them with the goal of compiling them into a feature length documentary to be released on 2016.

In this dispatch we look at how members of the Unis’toten nation are pre-empting the construction of 4 pipelines through their traditional territories

To help make these reports a reality, please visit STOPTHEFLOWS.com

For more background on BC's oil infrastructure visit the links below:

Aboriginal groups in Canada challenge tar sands projects

Grassroots Gathering to Resist Proposed Pipelines

In BC, Pipes Spell Double Trouble

This video report was originally published by the Vancouver Media Co-op

Another Niagara

Tim McSorley — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:08:24 +0000

another_niagara_comic_heathermeek.jpg

"The River Always Wins"

JustinL — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 09:04:44 +0000

1,500 take to the streets in Fredericton to oppose fracking.

FREDERICTON—Over 1,500 people from across New Brunswick and beyond marched through Fredericton on August 1 to demand an end to hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and shale gas exploration in the province. Concern over the effects that fracking may have on the province's water, for this generation and for those to come, brought out strong representation from the province's English, French, and First Nations communities.

The march wound its way through town, finishing at the Legislative Assembly, where a range of speakers addressed the peaceful but incensed crowd.

"The Wabanaki people are not here to celebrate New Brunswick today," said Alma, a representative of the Wabanaki Confederacy. "To me New Brunswick is just a government, nothing more. You see the flag flying up there?" she said, referencing the the Legislative Assembly where the provincial flag had been replaced by the Mohawk warrior flag. "That speaks the truth."

Central to the growing concern over fracking in New Brunswick is the province's newly-hatched, and largely one-sided, partnership with South Western Energy (SWN). SWN is not the only company looking to frack in New Brunswick, but the magnitude and scope of the Texas/Arkansas-headquartered company has the locals worried. Thanks to a March 2010 deal with the New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources, SWN holds exclusive license to explore 2,518,518 "net undeveloped acres" of New Brunswick. "Net undeveloped acres" is corporate jargon for "nature."

In return, SWN has promised to invest $47 million into the province over the next three years. While that might seem like a large amount, the untold millions in gas royalties that stand to flow out of the province make it look like small peanuts. As well, the very real potential for environmental disaster is difficult, if not impossible, to put into monetary terms.

Of course, there is always the perrenial promise of job creation in exchange for resource extraction. But Derek Telasco, for one, sees this as a low-hanging fruit not even worth picking.

"People are saying there's jobs," says Telasco, co-founder of Ban Fracking NB. "Like we're going to get these jobs here. First of all...we don't have the infrastructure for drilling like they do in Texas, Arkansas or Pensylvania...this is a new industry here, so what kind of jobs are going to be here? We don't have the people trained. You're going to get low-end, sweeper jobs, and clean-up crew. You'll be out there with a mop picking up the mess underneath, leaking. We're going to sell out our grandchildren's future in this province, we're going to take that kind of risk with our water?"

On June 23, 2011, the provincial government, in an attempt to placate the masses—and perhaps to save itself from being on the receiving end of a class-action lawsuit—unveiled a framework of regulations for potential frackers in the province. Judging by yesterday's turnout, the crowd was less than satistfied by Department of Natural Resources Minister Bruce Northrup and said regulations.

Northrup's regulations call for baseline testing for wells in close proximity to fracking sites, disclosure of the chemicals used when fracking and security bonds for potential household damage due to fracking. SWN, it should be mentioned, is currently facing, and has faced, class-action lawsuits in Arkansas and Pennsylvania. When dealing with the hundreds of millions in profits, however, security bonds for damaged households in New Brunswick are most likely acceptable losses to a company with the girth of SWN. It should also be mentioned that as natural gas prices continue to fall worldwide, SWN will most likely be continuing on an aggressive production schedule.

Telasco, for his part, fears the New Brunswick government is eager to move forward on this, attempting to get their fracking dreams off the ground before the public can catch on to the risks involved. The question of clean water is understandably an emotional one and public reaction across the province has at times been heated.

"My concern is that there's a number of issues that we're fighting against in New Brunswick." says Telasco. "One is a 25 per cent illiteracy rate. [SWN is] not fracking right now, they're seismic testing. And [the people are] getting really scared. What I'm worried about is that somebody is going to go too far and somebody's going to get shot. In my opinion we can't lose that moral high ground that we have by having a non-violent means of protest. When there's fracking trucks, we don't have to go and vandalize the fracking trucks."

Atlantic Canada's public concern over fracking is not limited to New Brunswick. Solidarity rallies were also held in Nova Scotia communities Inverness, Baddeck, and Truro; Charlottetown, PEI; and St. John's, Newfoundland. Indeed, as Hazel Richardson of the Sierra Club of Canada pointed out, many in the Atlantic region of Canada have been affected by fracking. It was recently revealed that the Nova Scotia-based Debert Waste Water Facility, owned by Atlantic Industrial Services (AIS), currently handles fracking wastewater from New Brunswick. While AIS representatives have assured the public that they are operating within their guidelines in handling fracking wastewater, this news was disconcerting to many, especially in light of the fact that Nova Scotia is undergoing its own environmental assessment of hydraulic fracking.

"There is a saying," says Richardson. "In a battle between the river and the rock, the river always wins. Not because it's stronger, but because it perseveres. The rock we face seems mountainous. The mining companies have deep pockets, and the government of our province seems so keen to snatch financial crumbs from the company plate that it is rushing into action that is threatening our land, the wildlife, and ourselves. All of Atlantic Canada has been or is being negatively impacted by hydraulic fracturing. Together Atlantic Canadians stand and say 'No to Shale Gas.'"

Witnessing the Tar Sands Dead Zone

dawn — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 05:48:05 +0000

Asserting the need to heal

FORT MCMURRAY, AB—In the face of the enormous devastation that is destroying forests across northern Alberta, a peaceful group of people are steadfastly asserting the need to heal the land and waters. On June 25, 2011, the second annual Healing Walk for the Tar Sands brought together Indigenous people, Keepers of the Athabasca, elders, children and supporters, who walked 13 kilometres through the heart of where Syncrude and Suncor extract bitumen on a massive scale.

Bitumen, a tar-like substance that holds petroleum, sits below what the industry, in an Orwellian turn, calls “overburden”—not forest

The destruction we saw is so vast it goes far beyond the visible horizon. The urgent need for healing is evident to anyone who visits this barren expanse. People from many places came to support and join in—including activists who participated with Zapatista Indigenous communities and the movement in Oaxaca, Mexico. Together they chanted, “Zapata vive! La lucha sigue!”

The Healing Walk for the Tar Sands was led by elders such as Lillian, a Cree woman, and Violet, an 83-year-old elder and the oldest woman in the community of Fort McMurray First Nation. These elder women possess a wonderful sense of humor and sharp minds, and with other elders, guided the traditional prayers, smudge and ceremonies. This walk faced the enormity of the land stolen from Indigenous peoples that is now destroyed, lifeless, and empty save for ugly scarecrows called “bit-u-men” to keep out the birds from its poisoned soil. Horrid continuous booms from sound cannons scare the birds from landing in the enormous reservoirs of toxic waste. We marched beside the machinery of destruction, the surreal gigantic Tonka trucks, cranes and pipes. The air pollution, a putrid stench, gave a headache to many of the people who participated in the healing walk.

The day was rainy with occasional bursts of sun, but the walkers were not deterred by the weather. A couple walkers had brought protective dust masks, remembering how terrible they felt last year after the six-hour walk, their lungs absorbing toxic dust from the tar sands. However, it was not appealing to wear wet masks so we continued, mostly mask-less, through the rain along the shoulder of Highway 63, accompanied by a heavy police presence.

This walk was started by people heartbroken by what has happened to their traditional homelands. One of the organizers, Cleo Reece, helped to start the Memorial March for the Murdered and Missing Women when she lived in Vancouver years ago. She spoke of the murdered and missing waters in northern Alberta: an eerie, disturbing connection between the violence against Indigenous women and against Indigenous land. Colonization is not a thing of the past; it continues today in virulent, violent forms and materializes in the increased rates of cancer found in communities downstream from the tar sands.

Resistance and commitment to peace also continue, as they have for the past 500-plus years. This is a form of power that is based in love for community, a community of the living that includes not just people, but bears, eagles, rivers, wind and forests. It is a deeply humble, peaceful power that stands in ethical contrast to the forms of power that greedily exploit and forcefully violate the land and those who live on it. It is a power that cannot be bought or sold because it is freely shared, residing in a respect and a grief for the land that gives us life.

We began and ended the day at the Nistawoyou Friendship Center in Fort McMurray where a feast for the walkers had been prepared by a chef with a joyful laugh and a team of dedicated volunteers. At the closing circle, Cree Elder Lillian Shirt was presented with tobacco in gratitude for her leading the day’s ceremonies, and she shared with us stories of survival and creativity.

We learned a lot from the tar sands healing walk and from visiting the surrounding Indigenous families, some who live in crowded old trailers, accessible by unpaved, muddy roads. The living conditions on some of the reserves are not unlike those in poor communities in Latin America.

Where are the economic benefits of the tar sands to these communities? What have they gained from these industrial projects? Witnessing the poverty, health problems and environmental destruction in person helped us respond to these questions. A huge economic gap remains between the living standards of Caucasian and Indigenous communities. Indigenous communities are marginalized in Canadian politics and are fighting institutional racism as their long-term interests are undermined.

On the walk, an elder weighed the cost of lost culture, water and foods and asked what all this destruction has been for. The question points to the global interests that have developed the Alberta tar sands in order to sustain a privileged way of life for some at the expense of others. We had travelled from Vancouver, a landscape dramatically different from the tar sands wasteland but which is nonetheless endangered by the latter's economic grip on land. Our Pacific Coast is threatened by proposed pipelines, with their inevitable spills, and a rapid increase in tanker traffic. In an era of climate change, those of us who live in urban centres cannot afford the disconnect between our cities that reap the temporary benefits of this destruction and the Indigenous homelands that have been desecrated. Through global waters, winds, and ethical human relations, we are linked with the people who are witnessing the eradication of their boreal forests, traditional hunting grounds and once-pristine waters.

On the edge of the dead land and toxic reservoirs, wild flowers, forests and Indigenous families live in trailer homes. Life here is simple, humble and warm, filled with good humour and jokes. Inside, Indigenous artwork on the walls portrays wolves, traditional carvings and pictures of ancestors and grandchildren.

In this community, women, men, children, young people and elders resist their displacement and speak up about the destruction of their land, water and wildlife.

“Giving up is not an option,” said Dene Suline Elder Warrior Brian Grandbois from Cold Lake, Alberta. Brian’s community is struggling to protect Berry Point at English Bay in Cold Lake, the land where they hold ceremonies and sacred burials, smoke fish and gather medicinal plants. This sacred land is threatened to become an RV park by ministerial order. Indigenous peoples of the area have set up their peace protection camp with tipis, tents and campfires, even though police are pressuring them to leave. Colonialism, Eurocentrism, and capitalism are killing Indigenous peoples, destroying our planet, La Pachamama—our Mother Earth.

That the pollution from tar sands extraction projects has spread to affect the waters of the Athabasca River and Fort Chipewyan is no secret. Beginning in the 1990s, these waters became unsafe to drink, and people are sick as a result of their toxicity. These polluted waters empty into the Arctic. This is a fact of hydrology. Tar sands pollution as a source of acid rain in Saskatchewan is a meteorological certainty. Airborne pollutants are also reported to be concentrating in lake water in neighboring Saskatchewan, reducing the availability of certain fish species.

While the ailing of these once-healthy waters is cause for alarm, corporate negligence has been responsible for at least three recent pipeline spills in Canada and the US. In July 2010, Enbridge spilled 3.1 million litres of oil into Tallmudge Creek and the Kalamazoo River, Michigan. In May 2011 in the Plains Midwest, 4.5 million liters of oil were spilled in Lubicon Lake Cree territory, the homeland of Melina Laboucan-Massimo, a young woman from the Lubicon Cree Nation who spoke eloquently at the Friendship Center. She described the horror of experiencing 28,000 barrels of oil spilling right beside her family’s homes, in the largest oil disaster in Alberta since 1975. In June 2011, Enbridge was also responsible for about 1,500 barrels spilled near Wrigley in the Northwest Territories. This last spill is said to have been kept out of waterways, but still seeped into the soil.

Horrific spills are not the only danger posed by industrial activity in Northern Alberta. In December 2010, a gushing saltwater aquifer at Shell’s Muskeg River operation raised questions about ground water contamination. This incident was preceded by another round of duck deaths in October 2010 in a Syncrude tailings reservoir. It’s a tragic irony when cultures that see water as something that comes from a tap have to learn about the interconnectedness of the earth’s waters through violent corporate operations that destroy Indigenous people’s homelands and cultures.

The Second Annual Healing Walk in Alberta’s Tar Sands was deeply inspiring. In the midst of massive greed and destruction, a community gathered to transform ground zero into a place of solidarity and social change. The call for healing is compelling, as simple and as necessary as breathing clean air and drinking clean water. The walkers shared an understanding—respect for ecological integrity must come first.

Aidee Arenas subscribed to the Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandona, Christine Leclerc organizes enpipeline.org, Choo-kien Kua is an artist and Rita Wong is a poet. They are all based in Vancouver. This article was originally posted on the Vancouver Media Co-op.

Tar Sands Healing Walk

Tar Sands Healing Walk II

The Plastic Bag Debate

Tim McSorley — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 05:34:14 +0000

Lessons from Rwanda

KIGALI, RWANDA—One of the first things you will likely notice if you have the chance to visit Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, is the extraordinary cleanliness that spans the city. This pleasant reality can be explained by looking closely at how the Rwandese manage their environment.

Of particular importance is their stance on plastics: Rwanda is now entering its fourth year with a nation-wide law banning all plastic bags.

As Canada continues to debate the future role of plastic bags, it is worth looking at the Rwandan example, and understanding how such an initiative operates, and what benefits it can bring.

Toronto is the only Canadian city with a mandatory fee to the consumer of five cents per bag. However, in recent months Toronto mayor Rob Ford has repeatedly attacked the fee, and has explicitly stated that he wishes to get rid of it. Why you may ask? The answer: consumers are apparently annoyed.

A spokeswoman for the mayor, Adrienne Batra, told CBC news in December 2010 that “the mayor speaks with residents every day, and the thorny issue of the bag tax keeps coming up. People are sick and tired of being nickel-and-dimed to death.”

It seems that Mayor Ford may be ignoring the facts, as multiple reports have indicated that the tax has greatly reduced the purchase of plastic bags in Canada. For example, Metro grocery stores have reported a drop of 80 per cent since 2009.

This reduction in plastic bag use is important for the Canadian environment, says Franz Hartmann, Executive Director of the Toronto Environmental Alliance.

“Plastic bags require fossil fuels and many chemicals to be produced. This is having a negative impact on the environment, and using up precious materials. They are also a major source of liter in Toronto, and are having a bad impact on wildlife outside the city.”

Although the fee is playing a positive role, it is worth looking past initiatives that simply aim to reduce use and toward those that target outright elimination. The perfect case study is the fight against plastic bags in Rwanda, a fight that has led to their complete demise.

For anyone who has travelled in Africa the ubiquitous nature of plastic bags sprawled everywhere is an undeniable reality. The problem has not gone unnoticed though: several African countries have been working to ban plastic bags for years.

Located in Eastern Africa, Rwanda is largely known for its tragic genocide that exploded in April 1994. Since then it has tended to operate as a relatively unknown country outside certain political and economic circles. However, for such a small, developing nation it is home to a variety of unique, forward thinking policies.

In 2008, Rwanda declared a nation-wide ban on all plastic bags.

The initiative was a response to the two most common ailments caused by plastic: a well documented understanding of plastic's negative environmental impacts, but equally influential, the extensive physical presence of bags around the country.

Dr. Rose Mukankomje, the Director General of the Rwanda Environmental Authority (REMA), has been at the forefront of this policy, and continues to work on a daily basis to monitor its progress.

“In 2004, the Ministry of the Environment began to conduct studies on the use of plastic bags in Rwanda,” she explains. “At that time people had started to see plastic invading everywhere—black, yellow, red colored bags—causing even visual pollution.”

In addition to the visual pollution, research from the National University of Rwanda reported the widespread environmental consequences of plastic. “Plastic was not only all over the ground, but underneath as well. This hindered agricultural production in Rwanda, as plants cannot grow past the plastic. As well, our water sources were becoming highly polluted with plastic being found inside many dead fish,” Dr. Mukankomje recalls.

The first step was raising awareness about this information. This began in 2005 during the national day of cleaning, called Umuganda. As the communities around Rwanda began to clean up they were asked to collect all the plastic they could find.

“We came up with a huge, huge amount of plastic—in the land, around our compounds, everywhere—everyone was scared,” says Dr. Mukankomje.

This event signaled the turning point. It not only sensitized many Rwandans to the problem of plastic within the country, but it got politicians thinking about the issue as well—President Paul Kagame took part in this event. A nation-wide campaign began by flooding the media. Furthermore, local NGOs and businesses were commissioned to create alternatives—mainly cotton or banana leaf bags.

The advocacy was a success and in 2008 a bill was finally passed to ban plastic bags within Rwanda. While there was still much resistance from the affected private sector, the culmination of the campaign can largely be attributed to developing a general consensus among Rwandans. Dr. Mukankomje explains, “You need a policy to get rid of plastic bags, but it must be wanted to be successful.”

The benefits of Rwanda’s plastic bag ban were quickly evident: in 2008 UN Habitat named Kigali the cleanest city in all of Africa. Now three years since the bill was passed, Rwanda remains a plastic bag-free country, and has developed a reputation across the region for its extreme cleanliness. The passing of the bill coupled with Rwanda’s monthly day of cleaning has insured that it remains this way, and will continue for the foreseeable future.

As Toronto debates the future of plastic bags, the story of Rwanda, now more than ever, should be considered. Though different in many fundamental ways, Canada, like Rwanda, relies greatly on its natural resources. Thus, the future health of the land is of pivotal importance in both countries.

“Human civilization has worked just fine without plastic bags. It’s only been in the last 30 years that they’ve reared their ugly head,” says Hartmann. “Getting rid of them completely is the best solution. I don’t see what the issue is.”

Eliminating plastic bags will play a huge first step in curbing the prevalence of plastics in the Canadian environment. As Dr. Mukankomje frames it, “We must not see this as a challenge, but as an opportunity.”

Mayor Ford, take note.

Ryan Kohls is a freelance journalist out of Peterborough, Ontario.

Bag in tree

Canada Gets Cuddly with Mining Companies

Moira Peters — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 10:28:38 +0000

Unconditional love for extractive industry costs taxpayers, say C-300 supporters

HALIFAX—Despite the death of Bill C-300, which would have introduced accountability for Canadian mining, oil or gas corporations operating in developing countries, watchdog groups are sounding the alarm louder than ever over what they see as a conflict of interest in the government. Not only is there a refusal to regulate these industries, they say, but government agencies are providing direct and indirect support for their practices.

“They are aiding and abetting, essentially,” said Catherine Coumans.

Coumans is the research coordinator for MiningWatch Canada. The group's raison d'etre is to be a watchdog in the extractive sector, drawing attention to human rights and environmental abuses perpetrated by Canadian companies. MiningWatch also lobbies MPs to promote sustainable mining practices and policies, such as Bill C-300, which would have disqualified any corporation implicated in unethical operations from receiving government funds.

In a report commissioned by the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada in 2007, Canadian companies were singled out as perpetrating almost half of documented misconduct around the world, including causing community conflict, engaging in environmentally unsound practices and violating human rights. The report went unreleased until it was leaked by MiningWatch in 2010.

Bill C-300 gained broad support—from a coalition of NGOs and activists to the Globe & Mail and the Toronto Star,—yet was defeated by six votes in its final reading in the House of Commons. Despite their initial support for the bill, the Bloc Quebecois, Liberals and NDP were instrumental in its defeat, as a handful of their members missed the vote, including Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.

Mining companies and the Conservative government vehemently opposed the bill. They argued that if regulations were imposed on the industry, companies would pack up shop and find headquarters outside Canada. They also said it jeopardizes development projects in the countries of the Global South, as well as jobs in Canada. Industry lobbyists, including former Liberal cabinet minister Don Boudria, met with MPs on the issue nearly 100 times in October 2010 alone.

These corporate interests can't be allowed to trump human rights, says Ian Thomson, Program Coordinator for Corporate Accountability with ecumenical justice group KAIROS.

“Whenever we went to Guatemala, we met with Canadian officials in the embassies and it's very obvious where their loyalties lay,” said Linda Scherzinger, a volunteer with KAIROS. The group is committed to advocating and acting on issues of climate and social justice in Canada and overseas.

The Harper government committed in 2009 to re-focus its aid to Latin America, adding five countries from the region to its list of 20 countries targeted by a $1.5 billion bilateral aid fund. The list included mineral-rich countries such as Colombia, Bolivia and Peru.

In November 2009, CIDA unexpectedly announced that KAIROS would no longer receive funding from the public agency. The sudden move raised eyebrows, especially after freelancer Kim Mackrael obtained through a freedom of information request the department memo responding to KAIROS's funding proposal, and published the story with Canadian Press. The memo read, “RECOMMENDATION—That you sign below to indicate you (not) approve a contribution of $7,098,758 over four years...” The word “not” was hand written above by an unknown person and was signed by International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda. Oda denied altering the application in front of a parliamentary committee, but has since admitted she edited the document.

In La Libertad, Peru, CIDA is spearheading a $500,000 reforestation project. Coumans says the project sounds good, but if this project is reforesting its mine site, that should be the responsibility of Barrick Gold. Coumans argues that Canadian taxpayers should not be footing the bill to fix Barrick's environmental impact, especially not under the auspices of “development.”

The La Libertad project is essentially a facade, says Emilie Lemieux, winner of the 2009 Gordon Global Fellowship, an annual award given to a progressive Canadian committed to sustainable international development. In a scathing report based on her experience in the region, she writes, “This project seems to fulfill the basic social needs the company is looking to address, as well as the Canadian embassy’s interest to work in [Corporate Social Responsibility], rather than the needs of the local population.” She goes on to say that CIDA's involvement exists simply to put a good face on Barrick's work, and that locals had no engagement in the projects.

In rhetoric and in cash, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) also backs the Canadian extractive sector abroad. Centerra Gold, a Toronto-based company that operates the Boroo mine in Mongolia, received $270,000 in funding this September as part of a direct investment program that totals $601 million. The company's mine had lain dormant, as months earlier workers picketed the site, demanding higher wages and severance pay. The Mongolian government had also suspended the mine's license, citing, among other things, improper operating procedures.

Centerra also operates the Kumtor mine across the border in Kyrgyzstan. The operation was sharply criticized for being a dangerous work environment after one worker was crushed by a pit wall in 2002. Before that, the mine had been the site of two large chemical spills—the first in 1998 and the second in 2000—that caused four deaths and 2,500 illnesses. In 1998, the company failed to notify residents until a Russian border guard discovered the spill; in 2000 they improved their record and only waited a day to make public the news that 1.5 tonnes of explosive material had spilled near the town.

The Kumtor mine is also the recipient of $35 million from the Canadian Pension Plan investment board and $50 million in political risk insurance from Export Development Canada (EDC). Political risk insurance covers 90 per cent of a company's investment in a “developing” country against events such as government nationalization or political turmoil. The stipulations for receiving the insurance revolve around EDC's corporate social responsibility policies. According to one representative for EDC, “We're not going to support something that the Canadian government doesn't support.”

EDC's support is worth a lot. The Financial Post has estimated that the crown corporation gives the extractive industry $20 billion in subsidies and insurance, including $1.3 billion in political risk insurance.

Despite DFAIT's role in lending support to these companies, it also houses the offices that purport to keep them in check. The office of Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor, headed by commissioner Marketa Evans, was created in 2009 to create a partnership between the Canadian extractive industry and those who reside near their projects overseas. The move has been largely panned by watchdog groups as being an ineffective half-measure that does more to serve mining companies than impacted communities. The office has an “avenue of recourse for mining, oil and gas companies who feel they've been unfairly targeted,” said Erica Bach, senior adviser in the office of Corporate Social Responsibility, who lauded the mechanism as being unique worldwide. The office's CSR strategy revolves around encouraging dialogue rather than regulating or imposing sanctions against companies who have been the subjects of complaints. To date, the office has not received any requests to review allegations against any Canadian mining companies.

Even CIDA's Indigenous Peoples Partnership Program (IPPP) is little more than a $10 million, taxpayer-funded lobby group for the mining industry, according to one source who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The agency employs Indigenous representatives such as Chief Glenn Nolan and Chief Jerry Asp.

Nolan serves as first vice president of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada and on the board of Noront Resources Ltd. Asp is vice president of the Canadian Aboriginal Minerals Association, and made news in 2005 after 35 elders occupied his office in protest of his involvement with the mining companies. The elders demanded that Asp step down, saying he was in a conflict of interest, having simultaneously acted as Indian Act chief and Chief Operations Officer of the Tahltan Nation Development Corporation, which is responsible for bidding on mining contracts for companies such as NovaGold, which operates one of the world's largest gold mines in Alaska with partner company Barrick Gold.

According to CIDA, IPPP exists to encourage the “sustainable development of Indigenous peoples in the [Latin American and Caribbean] region through an exchange of knowledge, experience, expertise, and existing models.” Those Indigenous people who met with Nolan and Asp were not informed of their mining connections, the source said, and were outraged when they learned of their involvement in the sector.

While Bill C-300 may be dead, an alternative bill is lying stagnant on the floor of the House of Commons. Bill C-354 would empower non-Canadian citizens who claim to be affected by Canadian mining companies to sue those companies. While opinion on the bill is mixed, those who supported C-300 are desperate for federal regulation of Canadian-owned mines.

Justin Ling is an activist and a journalist based in Halifax.

Tunnel of Love

Showdown in the Far North

Martin Lukacs — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:44:43 +0000

First Nations oppose Ontario's Far North Act, some environmental orgs support it

KENORA, ONTARIO—Following the third reading of the Far North Act, the Chiefs of Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN) in Northern Ontario have vowed to “unanimously oppose the introduction of Bill 191 into law, and will continue to do so by any means necessary.” NAN represents First Nations that are signatories to Treaties 5 and 9, covering two-thirds of the land mass of Ontario.

The Far North Act, provincial Bill 191, is said to have been designed to protect at least 50 per cent of this territory north of the 51st parallel, and to arrange for First Nations to lead land use plans. While the government and environmentalists insist the land use plans would be constructed, led and finalized by the First Nations, NAN's leadership believes the Minister of Natural Resources will have the final say in development, overriding treaty rights.

As the 225,000 square kilometre space is set aside, First Nations expressed concern that they would be ceding territory outside of the protected land use area to development.

Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals passed the bill in a 46 to 26 vote on September 23, despite opposition from not only First Nations, the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democratic Party but seemingly unanimous opposition from those who live and do business in the North, including the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, the adjacent Treaty Three Grand Council, the Ontario Prospectors Association, the Ontario Forestry Industries Association and the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce.

“It is a disappointing day for all of us who spent tireless hours opposing Bill 191 as our opposition was obviously ignored,” said NAN Deputy Grand Chief Mike Metatawabin. “As we have stated time and time again, NAN First Nations and Tribal Councils do not and will not recognize this legislation on our homelands. We will continue to uphold our Aboriginal and treaty rights and jurisdiction over our land. The real fight is just beginning.”

From the government’s corner, the intention with the bill has always been straightforward: to establish a clear set of rules in order to develop the Ring Of Fire, an estimated 72-megatonne chromite deposit located 500 kilometres northeast of Thunder Bay. Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry, Michael Gravelle, has called it “the largest economic development opportunity in Northern Ontario in a century.” More than 30,000 mining claims have been staked in the area in the past seven years alone.

A week before the passage of the Far North Act, the “unanimous” voice of Treaty 9 opposition to the bill was split when the two closest First Nations to the Ring of Fire, Marten Falls and Webequie First Nation, broke rank and signed Letters of Intent with Minister Gravelle. These Letters of Intent are the precursors to Memorandums of Understanding regarding land use planning. Marten Falls First Nation Chief Eli Moonias and Webequie First Nation Chief Cornelius Wabasse were promised skills training and finances to develop land use plans that address hunting and trapping sustainability.

“Whether the Far North plan gets moved forward, we’re still going to be using our land use plan,” Wabase said. “The main purpose of us signing with the government is to work with the government on our issues and that includes land use plans.”

A week after the act was passed, McGuinty was in Thunder Bay, announcing Christine Kaszycki as the Coordinator of the Ring of Fire. The Ontario Prospectors Association endorsed Kaszycki, who has been a leader of the revamped Mining Act and is former Assistant Deputy Minister in the the Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry. However, NAN Grand Chief Stan Beardy responded angrily to her appointment.

“We should have been a part of the selection of the person to fill this critical position,” Beardy said. "We are disturbed that the Premier can express his willingness to create a true partnership and yet leaves us out of this critical process. We need to ensure that our objectives and our plans for anything in our territory are adequately represented."

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) president Monte Hummel was one of the architects of the bill and has taken offense to opposition allegations that the act is neocolonial.

According to Hummel, the 50 per cent figure in the Far North Act was born from the seed of the 2003 Boreal Forest Conservation Framework. The environmental movement wanted a place at the table but to get it, they needed to have a quantifiable demand. To meet that end, the University of Central Florida’s Reed Noss was brought in and produced the 50 per cent protection estimate to maintain biodiversity in the Boreal Forest. It was then adopted by the US-based Pew Foundation, which spends $2 million annually funding most of the widely recognized environmental organizations in North America, including the WWF.

“Pew has not called the tune but they’ve said, 'If you want to be funded by the Pew Foundation, you have to come forward with a plan and proposals that make sense, that provide for industrial interests, First Nations, environmentalists and governments, and are going to produce something,’” Hummel said.

The four-cornered model of bringing industry, First Nations, environmentalists and government to the table emerged from the conservation framework and became the basis for the Far North Act. The willingness to accept industrial development puts environmentalists at the table and in exchange they have a guarantee that 50 per cent of the Far North will go untouched.

“In the old view, you’d always get outgunned by big government,” Hummel recalled. “Over the years, we’ve gotten a lot stronger. Now, the game isn’t sitting on the margins and complaining. Now you engage. You move to the centre. Rather than letting all these mega-organizations make decisions, you go to the centre and be part of that process.”

But regardless of the bill’s controls from the beginning to the end of the land use planning, NAN believes the philosophy behind it overrides treaty rights to land ownership and so are vowing to fight its implementation. With First Nations being brought into a process in which industrial interests are assured, they are in no position to maintain exclusive stewardship over the land.

With NAN having rejected the development framework, Hummel warned they would be pushed back to the sidelines.

“You’d better think about the state you’re going to be in if this bill gets rescinded. You’re going to be in a de facto development run by development interests, possibly under a Conservative government which doesn’t have a history of championing First Nations issues and being twisted around by government departments with no planning framework or final say in land use plans," Hummel said.

"I can’t imagine this act being rescinded is going to leave [NAN Grand Chief] Stan Beardy or his communities in a better position. I appreciate they don’t agree with me and it’s their opinion that really counts but the stakes are very high and my caution based on 40 years experience is, before you kill this, you want to think long and hard about what’s going to replace it.”

Jon Thompson is an award-winning journalist and author in Northwestern Ontario. Jon's reckless, freelance adventuring pseudonym is selling his book at www.tommyjonsson.ca.

NAN protest

Waves of Controversy Continue on BC Lakes

Moira Peters — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 05:35:07 +0000

Mt. Milligan mine in Northern BC far from a done deal

With all eyes on Tetzan Biny (Fish Lake) in central BC and the looming threat of government approval of Taseko's proposed Prosperity Mine, the proponents of the Mt. Milligan mine in northern BC have managed to avoid public scrutiny. But although it's stayed below the radar, the Mt. Milligan project could turn out to be just as controversial.

Before it was called Mt. Milligan, the area where the proposed open pit mine would be located was known to the Nak'azdli people as Shus Nadloh. It is a sacred area and an important watershed. Even so, Thompson Creek Metals, the mine proponent, makes the claim that the company can restore the area after mining, and replace fish habitat in the meantime by building reservoirs. The same claim is made by Taseko with respect to its proposed Prosperity Mine.

Building and operating the proposed Mt. Milligan mine near Prince George would mean turning a two-kilometre-long fish-bearing creek into a waste dump for potentially acid-leaching rock. The move to use the King Richard Creek Valley for waste disposal would result in almost three hundred million tonnes of waste rock being dumped into the creek, eliminating fish and marine life.

In a move hailed by local newspapers as a "breakthrough," the McLeod Lake Indian Band struck a revenue-sharing deal with the province for the Mt. Milligan mine. According to Black Press' bclocalnews.com, the McLeod Lake Band would receive as much as $38 million over the 15-year life of the copper and gold mine.

The McLeod Lake Band are Tse’khene peoples. The band independently affiliated with Treaty 8 in 2000. Treaty 8 was originally created in 1899 around the time of the gold rush; by signing the treaty, aboriginal title over land is ceded in exchange for "reserve lands, and other benefits," according to BC's Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation's website.

But diverting dollars to the McLeod Lake Band doesn't guarantee the project a green light.

The Nak'azdli Band is a member of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (CTSC), which pulled out of the BC Treaty Commission in 2006.

"We're not opposed to the project per se, but we want to work with the company and also with the province if we can get there," Chief Fred Sam of the Nak'azdli told the Vancouver Media Co-op in a phone interview.

Neither the Nak'azdli nor the CSTC have ceded their lands to British Columbia, or to Canada.

"We have... ongoing concern about the environment, and just the way things are being handled.... We're not happy with environmental process," he said.

The Mt. Milligan mine is slated to destroy King Richard Creek. Terrane has already received provincial approval of the environmental assessment.

Though past press releases from the Nak'azdli have signaled strong resistance to the Mt. Milligan mine, Sam says his community is waiting for the BC government to provide more information about the project and the possible benefits to the Nak'azdli before making any kind of decision on whether they'll support the mine.

"Once we get something from BC, then we'll present it to our community members, and we want them to say 'yea' or 'nay,'" said Sam, noting the possibility that this vote could happen within a few months.

The Halfway River First Nation and the West Moberly First Nation are also located near the proposed mine site.

Denver-based Thompson Creek Metals Company acquired Vancouver-based Terrane Metals Corp. in July 2010. The company has already begun building roads into the Mt. Milligan mine area, and plans to invest over $827 million in the proposed mine and the mill.

According to Thompson Creek Metals, the proposed open pit mine contains 2.1 billion pounds of copper and six million ounces gold, and would provide 400 direct jobs over 22 years.

Existing controversy around the Mt. Milligan mine is buried in forward-looking statements on the company's website. But if the Nak'azdli people are forced to stand up and protect Shus Nadloh and King Richard Creek, the facts on the ground—namely, the uncertainties around rights and title—may suddenly come into relief.

Dawn Paley is a journalist in Vancouver. This article was originally published by the Vancouver Media Co-op.

King Richard Creek

Whose Woods These Are

Moira Peters — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 05:08:00 +0000

Land defenders celebrate a year since Hanlon Creek occupation

OCCUPIED NEUTRAL TERRITORY (GUELPH)—The struggle to defend the Hanlon Creek Wetland Complex (HCWC) against developers and the city of Guelph has been ongoing for close to a decade. Last summer, from July 27 to August 15, this struggle culminated in a 19-day defensive land occupation just south of Guelph, and resulted in a $5 million Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suit against five people—myself among them. We were charged with conspiracy, interference with economic relations inducing breach of contract, trespass, nuisance, and intimidation. The Court recognized our struggle by awarding us an injunction against development, which strengthened a popular direct-action campaign to stop development and challenge the city's policies of greenfield development (development of a green space ecosystem, as opposed to redevelopment) and sprawl.

What drove people to stand against the city to prevent development around the HCWC forest? Here is a look at some features of the land that have motivated us. Perhaps you will recognize some of these features in the land around you.

The Struggle to defend the HCWC did not end with the May 2009 occupation. On May 7, 2010, a protest and disruption was held outside of Carson Reids Homes, Astrid J. Clos, Van Harten Surveyors and Guelph City Hall. The three companies are major contributors to sprawling developments in and around Guelph. On May 25, 2010,   City Hall approved a $3 million contract with Capital Paving, a Guelph-based aggregate company, for clearing, grading and servicing one-quarter of the Hanlon Creek site formerly occupied by land defenders. As engines start on the HCWC, a new chapter in the struggle to defend the land and halt the sprawl begins...

Matthew Lowell is rooted in occupied Neutral Territory.

Hanlon Creek Essay

Hanlon Creek Essay 1

Hanlon Creek Essay 2

Hanlon Creek Essay 3

Hanlon Creek Essay 4

Hanlon Creek Essay 6

Hanlon Creek Essay 7

Hanlon Creek Essay 7.5

Hanlon Creek Essay 8

Hanlon Creek Essay 9

Can There Be a Salmon People Without Wild Salmon?

Moira Peters — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 05:19:48 +0000

TRADITIONAL TERRITORY OF SNUNEYMUXW FIRST NATION (NANAIMO, BC)—On May 8, 2010, thousands of people flowed across the lawns of BC's legislature in Victoria to protest open-net salmon farming, which Indigenous communities and others are blaming for catastrophic declines in the wild salmon population.

Calling for wild salmon to take priority over farmed salmon, a contingent led by First Nations set off on April 23 from Sointula, at the north end of Vancouver Farms, and walked for two weeks to Victoria.

Two local dailies, The Vancouver Sun and The Province, both gave a figure of about 1,000 at the legislature, while The Globe and Mail estimated 4,000, but Alexander Morton, one of the organizers of the “Get Out Migration” march, counted many more.

“The Parliament lawns reportedly hold 20,000 people and looking out over the sea of people less than one-third of the lawn was visible,” said Morton.

The Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest were historically referred to as the Salmon People—their communities, stales, and culture thrived in unison with the salmon, which provided sustenance for humans and much of the ecosystem.

But the increasing number of commercial fish farms, which raise salmon in open-net cages in the ocean, poses a threat to First Nations.

Farmed salmon have been blamed for increasing parasitic sea lice and causing viral epidemics among wild salmon.

“The fish farms operating in our territories are killing wild salmon, the lifeblood of all life that reside in our territories and the lifeblood of our culture,” said Bob Chamberlin, Chief of the Kwicksutaineuk Ah-kwa-mish First Nation (KAFN) on northeastern Vancouver Island, near Alert Bay.

In a February 18, 2010 press release, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) stated, “The UBCIC has long-held the opinion that salmon fish farms has proven to have had a lethal and irreversibly toxic impact on indigenous runs of wild salmon. Especially where there is a concentration of fish farms in waters used by juvenile salmon exposed to the high concentrations of sea-lice from these fish farms.”

During the Vancouver Olympics, the UBCIC Executive joined 45 people who participated in a fast that supported the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council’s (MTTC) opposition to fish farm tenures in the Broughton Archipelago, in northwest Vancouver Island. They fasted for 29 hours, one hour each for the 29 salmon farms operating in the traditional territory of coastal MTTC.

The UBCIC took aim at Norway, home to most of BC's salmon-farming corporations.

“Norway voted to adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It was an historical vote and to Indigenous peoples it is regarded as a solemn commitment to universal human rights,” said Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo. “Companies headquartered in countries who voted to adopt the Declaration, such as Norway, should apply the standards of the Declaration in all of their relationships with Indigenous Peoples domestically and internationally.”

“Norwegian-owned salmon farms operating in our traditional territorial waters are killing wild salmon and strangling the lifeblood of our whole culture,” said Chief Chamberlin.

The plight of the salmon has been linked with the poor health of the First Nations. In 1997, Chief Simon Lucas of the BC Aboriginal Fisheries Commission issued a warning about the negative impact of salmon farming on wild salmon.

“The issue for us is about home, about how we're dying,” he said. “If you affect in any way the clams and the other marine life, you're going to affect us.”

In The Salmon People: The Story of Canada's West Coast Salmon Fishing Industry, author Hugh W. McKervill writes about the integral role salmon play in Indigenous cultures of the North Pacific Coast.

“The people of the North Pacific Coast were and still are 'The Salmon People,'” he writes. The capture of first salmon is celebrated as if the salmon were an “honoured guest of the rank of a visiting chief.” But colonists changed the Indigenous peoples' relationship with salmon.

"Native peoples controlled their fisheries through right of use and exclusion that predated non-Native interference," writes University of British Columbia law professor Douglas C. Harris. "The Native's claim was a moral and ultimately legal claim, based not only on efficient management or material need but also on a sense of right that originated within their cultures.”

But the moral and legal claim of the Indigenous peoples was not triumphant.

“After 1894, no part of the Native fishery was exempt under Canadian law from state regulation; in this sense the legal capture of the resource was complete,” Harris writes.

Harris describes the law as an instrument of cultural domination used by colonial powers to take and justify control of other territories and peoples.

More recently, First Nations have begun attempting to use the law to their advantage, to stop salmon farming.

On February 4, 2010, KAFN filed a class-action lawsuit against the BC government’s regulation of open net-cage salmon farms.

Chief Chamberlin said the lawsuit was a last resort.

“We have been patient and respectful, attending countless meetings while damage continues to be inflicted on the wild salmon by open net-cage salmon farms,” he said. “Wild salmon stocks throughout the entire Broughton are in a sustained and serious decline; some salmon runs may become extinct and never be replaced. The salmon have existed here as long as we have, and it is essential to the survival of our distinct aboriginal culture that plentiful stocks of wild salmon survive.”

Harris told The Dominion that the KAFN civil suit says much about the status quo.

“The fact that this dispute is being deliberated, argued, and decided in a Canadian court is revealing of the longer ongoing colonial control,” Harris said.

Turning to the BC courts might be interpreted as recognition of colonial jurisdiction, Harris said. With an independent court option closed to First Nations, weighing the survival of wild salmon against Indigenous rights becomes a “strategic decision.”

Among the crowd of wild salmon advocates gathered at Centennial Square behind Victoria City Hall—prior to the final march to the Parliament Buildings—was John Haughen of the Nlaka'pamux Nation.

“[Legal action] is the only tool we have since we've been allowed to hire lawyers and use the courts,” he said.

Deata Taylor of the Dzawada'eneuw First Nation on Kingcombe Inlet supports Chief Chamberlin's lawsuit. She does not, however, recognize the jurisdiction of the BC courts in First Nation territories.

“We should decide whether fish farms should be in our territories,” she said.

For more than a decade, a broad coalition of groups has been advocating a solution. In 1997, the Salmon Aquaculture Review alliance—whose members included First Nations, environmental groups, fishers unions, and legal advocacy groups—called for replacing net-pens with closed containment systems. These systems are closed off from and do not disrupt natural ocean environments.

Not all First Nations eschew salmon farming.

In 1987, Larry Greba of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans started aquaculture work for the Kitasoo/Xai'xais Nation on Klemtu Island in the Broughton Archipelago. He noted a collapse in commercial salmon fishing in the late 1980s, which caused the Kitasoo/Xaixais to turn to salmon farming and form a partnership with Marine Harvest. The Kitasoo/Xai'xais retained control over the development of the aquaculture sites so they could ensure a sustainable operation.

Greba focused on the economic impact for the community.

“The current situation for Kitasoo economically from salmon farming are 60 full time jobs, of which 18 are year round at the farm and 42 are with fish harvesting/transport and processing for 7–9 months per year at the processing plant in Klemtu,” he wrote in an email. “Total annual wages are about $1.5M to Kitasoo members and when the plant is operating the band has about a 60 per cent employment rate.”

When the plant is not operating, Greba says the employment dropped to about 40 per cent, but he added this was ameliorated by a long, steady processing season that qualified most workers for unemployment benefits.

Even the formerly anti-salmon farming Ahousaht First Nation on eastern Vancouver Island have switched sides and are engaging in salmon farming to create economic opportunities in a sustainable manner.

On May 5, 2010, the “Get Out Migration” marchers arrived at Nanaimo's Maffeo Sutton Park. Chief Doug White of the Snuneymuxw First Nation described the sacred relationship of his people to the salmon, the tradition of the salmon ceremony and the revered salmon petroglyph.

“The Snuneymuxw worldview ... is one that has salmon at the center,” White said.

White stated that the 1854 Douglas Treaty, signed by British Columbia's first governor with some First Nations, ceded Indigenous rights to some land but also recognized the way of life of the Snuneymuxw people, including the Snuneymuxw’s relationship to salmon and the right of engagement.

Morton criticized Norway and its multinational aquaculture.

“For 20 years, Norwegians have done this [salmon farming]. It is time to admit it was a mistake.” Salmon farms need to be pulled out of the seas, she said. She called on people to be firm with the government.

“Salmon are dying because of politics.”

People from the Pacific Northwest First Nations have long been the Salmon People. However, the multitude that turned out in Victoria on May 7, 2010, demonstrates that Salmon People comprise a broad swath of society—both Indigenous and non-Indigenous.

Kim Petersen is the Original Peoples editor with The Dominion.

Salmon rock

Indelible

Moira Peters — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 05:33:26 +0000

Heather Meek.Indelible.jpg

Goldcorp Drilled by Shareholders

Moira Peters — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 09:28:38 +0000

Mining company challenged at AGM to respect host communities

TORONTO—Shareholders of Canadian mining giant Goldcorp Inc. got a glimpse—albeit brief—into the lives of Central Americans whose land is being exploited by the company for gold. Some even paid attention.

Representatives from communities hosting Goldcorp mines in Central America made their way from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador to address the company’s annual general meeting (AGM) in Toronto on May 19, 2010.

Shareholders learned about the devastating effects Goldcorp’s operations have had on communities in Central America. The presenters told of an increase in health problems, cracked houses, widespread social conflict and the criminalization of protest in their towns and villages.

Carlos Amador, a teacher from Honduras, challenged the company's reclamation process at the closed San Martin mine in central Honduras, which in 1999 displaced 14 families and contaminated water to the point beyond which even the World Bank recommended.

"Who will control the acid drainage? Who is going to clean up the water contaminated with heavy metals?" he asked.

The AGM was not an easy venue for the visitors to tell their stories. Goldcorp attempted to cut Javier de Leon of Guatemala short during question period when de Leon tried to explain the environmental, health and social devastation brought by a Goldcorp mine to his town of San Miguel Ixtahuacan. He had previously been given less than a minute to address the meeting. When a supporter of the visiting group refused to be silent—protesting that de Leon deserved to be heard after traversing a continent to address the meeting—President and CEO Chuck Jeannes relented and gave de Leon the platform.

All the presenters spoke of the need not only for effective and fair consultation with potentially impacted communities before mining operations begin, but also the consent of those communities.

To that aim, a shareholder resolution was brought forward by Kathryn Anderson of the Maritimes-Guatemala Breaking the Silence (BTS) Network, which called on Goldcorp to adopt a corporate policy on free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) by September 1, 2010.

FPIC is a central theme of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and is the basis of Article 169 of the International Labour Organization, which states that before a mega-project—such as a mine or a hydroelectric dam—can begin on Indigenous lands, residents need to be consulted about the proposed project and to give their informed consent.

The Goldcorp operations influenced by Anderson’s proposed policy would impact not only Indigenous communities, but all communities dependent for survival on natural resources.

Specifically, the resolution calls on Goldcorp to respect UNDRIP as best practice with regards to FPIC rights; to note the legal difference between consultation and consent; to implement the proposed policy retroactively to ensure that all Goldcorp’s mining licenses were obtained in adherence to this policy; to cease all operations, expansions, and exploration where consent of the affected population has not been obtained by the state; and to apply this policy to any license with partial or full Goldcorp ownership.

“The shareholder resolution was brought forward because in cases like San Miguel Ixtahuacan [in Guatemala], we have seen the results of not having FPIC. Communities have not had the full disclosure of costs, benefits, and risks of open-pit gold mining,” said Anderson. “When a full discussion is not there, it creates an enormous amount of conflict.”

In its pre-AGM letter to shareholders, Goldcorp urged its investors to vote against Anderson’s resolution, saying the company would be launching its own human rights platform at the AGM.

In fact, just days before its AGM, Goldcorp released a Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) of the Marlin Mine in San Miguel Ixtahuacan—the result of a petition by shareholders. Initial assessments of the HRIA by various NGOs, including Amnesty International, express concerns that affected communities were not invited to discuss whether or not the study would have been appropriate or beneficial. Although both a Goldcorp representative and an investor sat on the steering committee for the HRIA, no resident was given such a privilege. Meanwhile, both the communities and NGOs argued that the study would only increase social tensions in the already-fractured communities; the assessor, On Common Grounds, itself concluded that the study resulted in escalated social tensions and polarization between and among communities.

Shareholders representing 90 per cent of Goldcorp’s shares voted against Anderson's proposed resolution. She was surprised by the 10 per cent of shares in its favour, given that shareholders rarely vote against the company line. “We do not have an explanation for that yet,” she said. “Did someone advise a large block of shareholders to vote against Goldcorp in this instance? Or is it because people specifically read and heard our concerns?”

Although Goldcorp claims it participates in consultations with populations affected by its mines, company representatives refuse to articulate a detailed consultation process or put one into company policy. Furthermore, nowhere does Goldcorp claim to respect the rights of communities to say no to mining, which is a keystone of Anderson’s resolution.

When it ignored the results of community-organized consultations in 2005 in Sipakapa, a region bordering the Marlin Mine—where 11 out of 13 communities unanimously opposed the mine’s presence—the local government was pressured to address the issue. The municipality of San Miguel has since organized its own upcoming consultation. Goldcorp General Counsel VP David Deisley said the company is not legally required to respect the results of such a consultation.

Goldcorp in general, and Jeannes in particular, consistently deny FPIC is directly applicable to the company, arguing the laws for consultation and consent apply to governments, not corporations.

Nelly Rivera de Silva of El Salvador explained that despite a moratorium on all mining exploitation in her country, she will be directly impacted by Goldcorp’s proposed Cerro Blanco mine to be built in Guatemala several kilometers upstream of Lake Guija—a binational lake. The lake is the tributary of the Lempa River, the most important watershed in El Salvador. Another 13 mining projects line El Salvador’s border with Guatemala, and 42 line its border with Honduras.

Rivera explained that she came to Canada to address Goldcorp on home soil and to inform people of the local repercussions of gold mining.

Goldcorp’s eight-page glossy handout on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) states: “Sustainable operations are dependent upon good working relationships with the communities in which we operate...We believe our transparent approach to doing business is the only way to fully engage our stakeholders in a meaningful, mutually beneficial relationship.”

But Rivera thinks this company line is an insult to shareholder intelligence.

“Why wouldn’t you think something is not quite right when members of the affected communities are coming all the way to Canada just to have their voices heard?” she asked.

As he was leaving the meeting, a shareholder addressed one of the 50 protesters demonstrating outside the AGM, asking why they were “anti-employment.” His sentiments reflect a feeling by many Canadians that mining companies are effectively bringing development and prosperity to people who would be starving if it weren’t for opportunities from the North.

De Leon had a different story. He maintained that Goldcorp is making millions in profit at the expense of the social fabric in Guatemala, where community tensions and social conflict are direct results of the affected communities having no say about the open-pit gold mine.

De Leon has felt this tension point-blank. After receiving numerous death threats, he was shot at four times on April 19, 2010, a few days before his departure for Canada. He said the majority of such threats come from mine workers or people with personal connections to the mine. Feeling tense, vulnerable, and worried for his family’s safety, de Leon said that a majority of investors do not know or care about this reality.

“No shareholder wants to hear what we have to say. They only want to see the renewal of their investment,” he said. “No-one claims ownership of the damages done to the environment, to society, or to the politics of Guatemala.”

Referenda have been organized across Guatemala to address the lack of informed consent, but neither the national government nor the company recognizes these consultations as legitimate, even though in some cases 100 per cent of an affected population has voted against mining.

Although it wouldn’t legally uphold FPIC, Bill C-300, a private member’s bill tabled by Liberal MP John McKay, could create some legal options for communities impacted by Canadian mines.

The Canadian government provides political and economic support to Canadian mining companies like Goldcorp operating abroad, through embassy relations, tax incentives and investment support with public funds like the Canada Pension Plan. Bill C-300 would make this political support and public money contingent on Canadian companies meeting certain human rights standards—standards these companies have already agreed to in various voluntary principles on corporate social responsibility, many of which are found in the CSR standards for Export Development Canada.

The bill would establish a legal complaints mechanism allowing people who wish to report human rights violations to do so with the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT). If DFAIT concludes that a company's actions violate established guidelines for responsible behaviour, the company’s political and economic support from Canada would be withdrawn.

Bill C-300 is a watered-down version of recommendations made at the 2007 National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility, which was approved by the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. Nevertheless, the mining industry has launched strong opposition to the bill.

Rare for a private member’s bill, C-300 has passed through two votes in the House of Commons, and is currently at the end of its committee stage. MPs have reported receiving more letters in support of C-300 than any other bill in recent memory. If it succeeds in the committee, the bill will return to the House for a third and final vote; and if passed, it will go to the Senate. Since the Conservative Party opposes the bill on the basis that it would hurt the image of Canadian mining companies and their global competitiveness, the bill will likely die in the Senate because of a Conservative majority.

All four Central American activists who flew to Canada to speak to Goldcorp’s shareholders were adamant that voluntary standards for Canadian companies do not protect against human rights abuses. Although they were all in support of Bill C-300, they continue to push for free, prior and informed consent to be a focal point of Canadian legislation.

Valerie Croft worked in Guatemala as an International Accompanier in 2008 and is active in issues relating to corporate accountability.

Cleaning up Goldcorp's toxic mess

Feliciano Orellana and Carlos Amador

Algae Blooms Controversy

hillarybain — Mon, 10 May 2010 05:48:09 +0000

Nova Scotian mink industry blamed for water woes

HALIFAX—Tensions are running high in Yarmouth County. A proposal for a lakeside mink ranch near Carleton, Nova Scotia has resulted in a call for the provincial government to declare a moratorium on the establishment of new lake- and riverside farming developments.

Residents are worried their lake will be condemned to the same fate as many other water-bodies in the Carleton River watershed, which have been overrun by blue-green algal blooms.

“The pollution is so bad," says Carlene MacDonald, a Carleton resident. "The mink breeders choose to use 100 kilometres of river systems as their toilet and the government allows it by not responding.”

Blue-green algae, known as cyanobacteria, have overtaken a number of lakes in the region. Possible contributing factors include faulty lakeside septic systems and run-off containing agro-industrial fertilizers, but many believe the primary source is manure, urine, offal, caustic cleaning liquids and fly control chemicals from riverside mink ranches in neighbouring Digby County.

One and a half million minks are raised in Nova Scotia each year on almost 80 mink farms, according to the CBC. The majority of those mink farms are located in Digby and Yarmouth Counties. In 2006, Nova Scotia ranked first in the country for mink farming, with 49.8 per cent of the country’s mink, according to Statistics Canada.

“Fur, mainly from mink farming, is one of the fastest growing agricultural sectors in NS, and currently represents approximately $64 million in farm cash receipts,” states the Nova Scotia Agriculture Business Plan.

In October, Yarmouth County Municipal Council voted to amend a municipal land-use bylaw, increasing, from 328 to 500 feet, the required minimum set-back distance from lakes and rivers for buildings and manure storage facilities used in conjunction with fur ranches, and hog and fowl farms.

In response to the bylaw amendment, the Nova Scotia Mink Breeders Association and a group of Yarmouth-area livestock farmers filed an appeal with the Nova Scotia Utility and Review board. At the request of the appellants, the hearing has been postponed twice since February, most recently on March 30, and a new date has yet to be announced.

The Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture (NSFA) has sided with industry against the bylaw change. The NSFA was initially named among the appellants but has since changed tactics and is now coupled with the NS Mink Breeders Association to jointly present at the eventual hearing. Donna Langille, operations manager of the NSFA, said the reason for jointly presenting “was that we felt if we combined our resources [with the NS Mink Breeders Association] into a collective effort we would have a better standing.”

In a more recent example of "collective effort," NS Minister of Agriculture John MacDonell introduced a bill to the provincial legislature on April 29 that would require fur ranchers to obtain a site approval permit before being administered their operating license and also would require they have an environmental management plan in place. The bill was drafted by the Department of Agriculture with input from the NS Mink Breeders Association.

MacDonald calls the bill a "scam" and another example of closed-door policy making which fails to represent the concerns of affected residents.

The blue-green alga that is flourishing in many Yarmouth County lakes is a toxin-generating microscopic plant that thrives in water containing high levels of phosphorus and nitrogen. The algae's prevalence has raised concerns regarding health and safety, property values, local ecologies, and the proper regulation of industry.

In July, 2009, Camp Wapomeo, a YMCA summer camp for local youth that had held its water recreations on the same lake in Yarmouth Country for 81 consecutive years, had to relocate their activities due to the algae and consequent safety concerns. Camp director Kathleen Whyte stated publicly that the algae’s growth is becoming more apparent each year and said she is inclined to attribute declining camp registration to parental concerns over health risks.

Randy Cleveland is a member of the Tusket River Environmental Protection Agency (TREPA), a group comprised of residents and concerned citizens from Carleton. TREPA has conducted its own research and investigation into the community’s water troubles.

Cleveland points to the fact that Nova Scotia’s mink and fur farms are only subject to recommended guidelines for reducing environmental risk in their operations, meaning they are self-regulating entities. He says Carleton needs "bylaws so the municipality would have recourse when it comes to establishing and enforcing regulations for mink and fur farms.”

In its mission statement and progress report entitled Environmental Performance of the Agricultural Sector in Nova Scotia 2009: A Report Card, the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture acknowledges that “manure management in areas of livestock concentration has to be improved,” and that “the mink sector, in particular, is primarily located in an area with a small cropland base, reducing alternatives to effectively manage mink manure and other wastes close to mink farms.”

The Report also states, however, that self-regulation is working. "Nova Scotia’s environmental acts and regulations support [environmentally sustainable farming practices] by encouraging compliance and by establishing a culture of self-regulation, minimizing the need for a harsh regulatory approach.”

Cleveland disagrees: “The waste problem has been acknowledged and the ecological consequences are now apparent, but the culture of self-regulation is not effectively operating. The provincial acts and regulations are either too broad to be useful or not being properly enforced.”

MacDonald agrees: "The pollution is so bad. I’m sure if more people could be made aware of the situation they would scream 'Pollution!’ along with us.”

Steven Wendland is a writer and filmmaker from Harmony, Nova Scotia.

This article was originally published by the Halifax Media Co-op.

Blue Green Algae

Sloans Lake