Page 1


FALL 2018




COWS SAVE THE PLANET From the ground up


CAEPLA counsel Paul Vogel fights for you


Ottawa has no business owning Trans Mountain


The solution starts with respecting property rights CAEPL A .ORG



This is how we protect the land, water and wildlife. Thousands of dedicated professionals across the country – from engineers to environmental experts – work together to deliver the energy you need while protecting the environment. Find out more at aboutpipelines.com


FALL 2018


4 “I’m very proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish working with CAEPLA” –Paul Vogel

Cover photo: Getty Images



04 06 07 08 10 12 14

A New Era in Pipeline History


CAEPLA, Construction Monitors and You

18 20 24 27 30 32 34 37 39 41

Conservative Confusion About Property Rights

What nationalization of TMX means for landowners

"Digging" the Maintenance Dig

Why an integrity dig is worth the effort

The Great Trans Mountain Giveaway Who benefits and who doesn't

“Gently Used Pipe” Bad News for Landowners

How the Trans Mountain tragedy could be improved

No Way to Get Pipelines Built When it comes to TMX, Ottawa should be hands-off CAEPLA Commitment

CAEPLA and Enbridge work together to benefit all

Open Season on Ranchers

Unethical hunting is a safety issue

The future of land management is here

Rapid response is criticial during a pipeline emergency

The Law of the Landowners

Lawyer Paul Vogel reflects on three decades of work

Cows Save the Planet

How grazing animals can help build soil

A Solution to Pipeline Paralysis

Why respecting property rights is key

Quality Agreements

Trans Mountain landowners can rely on CAEPLA

The Fungus Beneath Your Feet

Discovering the fabulous fungus on your land

A Practical Proposal

The PPC's Maxine Bernier should abolish the NEB

Preparation is Key

In a pipeline emergency, rapid response is critical

Going to the Mat for Safety and Environment Embracing best practices

CAEPLA Insights on L3RP

Enbridge’s L3RP has CAEPLA’s stamp of approval

Pipeline Observer is a publication of the Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowner Associations and the Continental Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowner Associations 257, 918 Albert St., Regina, SK S4R 2P7; 306-522-5000. All contents copyright ©2018 CAEPLA. Advertising information: advertising@caepla.org | Editorial: editor@caepla.org Administration: admin@caepla.org | caepla.org | Twitter: @CAEPLA

Media & Marketing Solutions

Published by RedPoint Media Group Inc., 100, 1900 11 St. S.E., Calgary, AB T2G 3G2, 403-240-9055, Toll Free 1-877-963-9333, info@redpointmedia.ca, redpointmedia.ca | Printed in Canada by Transcontinental LGM | Statements and viewpoints expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the publisher. | PM 40030911 CAEPL A .ORG




A New Era in Pipeline History

What landowners can do about Trans Mountain’s nationalization


he nationalization of Trans Mountain (TMX) begins a new era in pipeline history. So, what can you, the landowner, say or do about it? Demand all easement “agreements” be renegotiated, for starters. Why? The National Energy Board (NEB) was purportedly an independent regulator—independent of government and industry. In reality, it acted as cover for government to provide industry with rent control via



right of entry. There is a very high probability the easement on your land is there as a result of expropriation or the threat thereof. The NEB and its enacting legislation never respected landowners or their property and human rights. Consequently, it compromised their land, businesses and families. Ottawa’s regulator claims it is there for all stakeholders, and yet nowhere in the Act does it mention landowners—the directly affected. The reference to “stakeholder” was designed to mislead landowners.

To compromise their right to protect themselves and their property, and generally to submerge landowner rights among the interests of other parties, most of whom had no real skin in the game. The same language and tactics have been co-opted by anti-pipeline activists to secure political influence in their fight to compromise the rights of industry and landowners. With the Trudeau government’s nationalization of TMX there is not even a pretense of independence on the part of regulators. Ottawa is in a profound

Getty Images

Ottawa is in a profound conflict of interest: as the owner of this new energy transport Crown, it does not need to capture the regulator—government already owns it, too. conflict of interest: as the owner of this new energy transport Crown, it does not need to capture the regulator— government already owns it, too. Now politicians want to use their power to further compromise individual rights to fit their agenda. Conservative Party politicians even want to expropriate the entire Trans Mountain corridor—including your land—for the benefit of Ottawa’s new pipeline company and, allegedly, to create jobs elsewhere in the economy. Meanwhile the left, pandering to some Indigenous interests, wants to expropriate or at the least open up your property so they can examine your land for archaeological, heritage, historical or environmental reasons. Which will be a handy tool for activists if they want to suspend operations on your farm or ranch for political or other reasons. Crown corporations are political entities and, as such, are easily manipulated for political purposes. When politicians from both ends of the spectrum casually talk about expropriating whole energy corridors, no landowner with the Trans Mountain Crown on their property can rest easy. Crown corporations are the worst offenders against property rights and the worst abusers of landowners. The Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowner Associations (CAEPLA) has witnessed this in Saskatchewan, and more recently in Manitoba where its hydro utility, Manitoba Hydro, has brutalized landowners there for the past several years. If landowners thought they were not respected and had no rights to fair treatment when Kinder Morgan owned the pipe, just wait until you

deal with bureaucrats as the regulator, and now their close personal friends from Ottawa running the company. The NEB would have been a big enough problem for TMX landowners, but the board managed to wear out its welcome even in Ottawa, and is being scrapped. Ordinarily this would be good news. But the old adage “be careful what you wish for” applies here. The enactment of Bill C-69 means that, like the mythical Hydra, the NEB will be replaced by not one, not two, but three new regulatory bodies. The last decade has seen much controversy and disruptive political intervention into the pipeline industry, to the point of paralysis. Everybody from politicians, bureaucrats, regulators, media, academics, green activists and foreign environmental trusts, as well as competing foreign oil producers, have conspired to kill Canada's energy industry. Pipeline companies and their landowner partners have been caught in the crossfire. Companies cannot get new projects built, and even replacement projects—something demanded by most pipeline landowners to ensure safety and environmental integrity— have become difficult, if not impossible, to get done. The only constant, the only reliable friend pipeline landowners and energy corridor residents have been able to count on is CAEPLA. CAEPLA fought shoulder to shoulder with landowners against predatory regulators looking to privilege industry at your expense. We negotiated landowner contracts that created safer pipelines that respected your property rights and environmental

stewardship responsibilities. We then helped pipeline companies get regulatory approvals and government approvals on projects when—and only when—those projects embraced landowners as partners and deployed cutting-edge technology that prioritized safety and environmental integrity. Enbridge’s Line 3 Replacement Program (L3RP) is one such project. It is because of CAEPLA’s proven success, experience, reputation, credibility and integrity that we urge our fellow pipeline landowners on TMX to take a close look at L3RP. Trans Mountain landowners deserve better. Better than an aging, leaky pipe on their property. Better than archaic, unfair easement “agreements” from more than half a century ago. Better than threats of expropriation. Better than an incompetent and chaotic Crown corporation in their backyard. Better than taking a back seat to green activists. And better than the new Canadian Energy Regulator that will cater to everyone but pipeline landowners. The energy transport industry has entered a new era. So far, none of it is good. But together we can change that. If you are a pipeline landowner, especially on TMX, and feel you deserve better, we are at an exciting point in pipeline history. This is your time. This is your opportunity. Give CAEPLA a call.  Dave Core is CAEPLA’s director of special projects, having served as president and CEO from 2000 to 2018. Dave is the principal at Dave Core and Associates, a firm consulting on land management, agribusiness, and property rights issues.





"Digging" the Maintenance Dig Integrity digs can be a drag, but they beat the alternative


he pipeline is in. Contracts are signed. The energy company makes token gestures about your property rights. Smooth sailing from here, right? No doom and gloom; it will probably be pretty smooth. Like a lot of folks, you might believe you’re past the digging and construction crews and cacophonous noise. Not so fast. Your land may be re-ravaged sooner than you think—and here’s why you should welcome it.

Monitoring and inspection tools are running at all times on pipelines. If there is a blip on the radar, THEY CAN DO ONE OF TWO THINGS:


UP 6


Do a maintenance dig: So, what’s involved in a maintenance dig?


Preventative Maintenance Digs




Risk spill city and earn lovely headlines about the end of the world.

They strip the topsoil.

2 Then they excavate to expose the pipe. 3 They clean the pipe, remove the coating and inspect it. They are looking for corrosion, or cracks, or any need of replacements. 4 Once repairs or replacements are complete, they are tested, and the pipe is re-coated. 5 The excavation is backfilled and the affected landscape is restored. 6 Such a dig can take between two days to two weeks. The kicker? They might find there's nothing wrong with the pipe at all.

The Psychic Cost of An Ounce Of Prevention Similar to a CT scan that ends with no tumour, you can focus on the relief. Look, Enbridge reports a 99.9+ per cent safe-delivery record. The unachievable ideal is 100 per cent. So you endure the digs. And they really don’t happen often. But the fact is that it is a possibility, and one you should consider when you have a pipeline running through your land. The thought of having an on-call crew ready to blast mutant gopher holes in your acreage is not the most satisfying image. But it’s better than a leak, failure, or other catastrophic event. Companies like Enbridge vow they will get in and out as effectively as they can, and restore the landscape back to tip-top. And with the help of organizations like CAEPLA, you can hold them to it. Just don’t hate on the maintenance dig, because it is far preferable to the alternative.  Sean Corbett is an Okanagan-based writer and filmmaker. He runs the marketing agency Repria Multimedia Corp (repria.ca).


The Great Trans Mountain Giveaway Taxpaying pipeline landowners may foot the bill for a windfall for Indigenous people


t never ends. When Ottawa nationalized the Trans Mountain pipeline (TMX), we knew it wasn’t the end of the debacle and there would be many more harebrained schemes connected with the asset. The latest is the idea of giving the pipeline (or a share of it) to Indigenous people according to government sources speaking with the Toronto Sun (October 3, 2018). We heard about Indigenous people buying equity positions in Ottawa’s Trans Mountain, but this new information suggests they might receive Trans Mountain as a gift. And supposedly this isn’t just a frivolous idea. It has come up at the cabinet level and is under serious consideration. Don’t you love when the government takes your money to buy things and gives them to other people? Such is the nature of government, but this is egregious.

While different parties talk about how to divvy up the loot, there is an important group being left out of the discussion. What about the landowners? There are 2,200 Trans Mountain pipeline landowners along the line. Are their easements then to be transformed into Indigenous fiefdoms? No one with political influence nor anyone in the mainstream media seems to care about the landowners directly affected by all of this. When Ottawa originally bought the pipeline, we heard about everything except the interests of property owners. One might say that they’re already taken care of. But the landowners find themselves in a situation where Ottawa has assumed their agreements with Kinder Morgan. If you think dealing with a big corporation can be problematic, consider dealing with one of Ottawa’s Crown corporations. What a slap in the face. Since it's their land, shouldn’t they have the option to get an equity

When Ottawa originally bought the pipeline, we heard about everything except the interests of property owners.

position before Ottawa starts giving it away? After all, the property owners pay taxes that have been used by Ottawa to make the acquisition in the first place. Indigenous peoples’ governing bodies are basically just strange arms of the federal government itself and they pay no tax. Now, it’s one thing to want to sell the pipeline to a willing buyer (although finding such a buyer is difficult given that federal courts quashed the approval to develop the expansion). It’s quite different to use taxpayer money to buy a major energy infrastructure asset from a corporation and then divvy up the asset for political purposes. Even for those Indigenous people who want to buy into it, we must remember that their money comes from Ottawa (taxpayers) and any financing they get is ultimately backed by Ottawa (taxpayers). Even if the government doesn't ignore the existing TMX landowners—CAEPLA is working to ensure it doesn’t—it is still an astoundingly bad idea. Many of B.C.’s Indigenous people supported TMX. They made good-faith agreements so they could benefit from the project. Meanwhile, some opposed it. Will the supporting Indigenous people be happy if those who fought to kill the pipeline get free a piece of the action? Is it a good idea to send a message that engaging in legal extortion will be handsomely rewarded by Ottawa?  C. Kenneth Reeder is a Calgary financial analyst providing mergers and acquisitions advisory services for midsized, privately held companies in Western Canada. He works with many clients in the oilfield services sector. He is also the editor of CanadianMarketReview.com.





Purchase of “Gently Used Pipe” Bad News for Landowners The Liberals’ Trans Mountain tragedy could be improved with property rights for pipeline landowners


am generally amused by Conrad Black’s cheekiness in his National Post columns. But on June 8 of this year, I had to plant my flag in the ground not occupied by Mr. Black, who praised the Liberal government



on its proud purchase of “gently used pipe”—namely Trans Mountain. The government spent $4.5 billion in an attempt to solve a problem it created, not including the hundreds of millions that it will take for repair, expansion construction or spill cleanup costs for as long as the government owns the asset.

The Liberals say they are looking for an investor to divest themselves of an economic tragedy. Specifically one that is willing to step into a muddy puddle of politicians, special interest groups, questionable valuations and a recent court decision that pipelines must be built with environmental studies and public consultation. Kinder Morgan shareholders voted overwhelmingly to accept the government’s multi-billion dollar offer. Which, together with the resulting higher Kinder Morgan share prices,

provided those shareholders with a double dip. The government has now promised to indemnify potential suitors for this project, but lingering financial responsibilities and investor indemnification could tie up public funds for decades. Assuming the courts approve the pipeline following legal challenges from municipalities, environmental and Indigenous people, the project could be more appetizing for national and local support—if all interested parties were given opportunities to participate. The new narrative coming from the Liberals has been about providing Indigenous people with an equity stake moving forward. However, this brings up a few questions:

1 Where does that leave other landowners with 60-year-old oil pipelines running under their property? 2 Where would the funding for Indigenous participation come from?

Getty Images

3 Which Indigenous groups are interested, and which are not? Determining a balance stake in the equity of any “nationalized” asset is complicated, especially when some Indigenous people have come out and opposed it. At a surface level, the equity potentially offered to Indigenous people is in essence a trade-off from one level of government to another and misses the mark in terms of value offered to all Canadians. So far, Kinder Morgan shareholders have been the only ones to benefit, and Canadian taxpayers are the ones left to foot the bill. By establishing a layered hierarchy of government interests, including

The Liberals say they are looking for an investor to divest themselves of an economic tragedy.

municipal, provincial and federal, the views of private individuals become increasingly muted. Finance Minister Bill Morneau has been quoted as suggesting that private interests couldn’t get this accomplished and the government was forced to make this happen. This narrative is extremely dangerous given that governments can make decisions with bottomless pits full of money at their disposal, compared to making sound economic arguments when coming to business decisions. In fact, it was economist Murray Rothbard who asserted that government is “a means to be ranged against the ‘private sector’ and often winning in this competition of resources.” I’m not suggesting that I have all the answers to balancing out all viewpoints, but to me, whoever has ownership of the land the pipeline is on should probably be the pre-eminent interests of the equity stake proposed by Morneau. This group could include property owners in direct proportion to their vested interests in the project and limited to such a stake. Other groups would have to prove their interests in a solid, quantifiable manner, such as municipal and provincial interests. If a group of landowners have a provable vested interest, then municipal

governments do not need to act on their behalf. This boils down to having an ability to seek restitution (payment) from a company or government not fulfilling its proper due diligence and acting negligently, instead of retribution (punishment). If someone with a proven vested interest could seek vast sums in compensatory payment, then the economic calculation of project viability would automatically include stronger due diligence. It’s similar to an auto insurance company seeking damages against a negligent driver—not only would the insurance company profit but the costs would be totally deferred to the negligent party. This issue is about our ability to enjoy property rights in a private market system. If someone devalues our property by mishandling their own affairs, then we should be able to seek restitution on the grounds of economic impact. And if that payment included ongoing costs for negligence for environmental disasters, then perhaps tertiary interests could be met as well. In the end, I don’t think the full impact was considered when the pipeline was purchased from Kinder Morgan, and that's what Conrad Black overlooks. 

Michael Sidhu is a recovering banker who lives in British Columbia with his wife and business partner, Marena, and three children. Michael’s experience in the financial industry includes investments, insurance and mortgage banking. He earned his CFP designation in 2005, the FMA designation in 2007, and the RCIS designation in 2017. In 2016, Michael earned his Infinite Banking Practitioners Certification through the Nelson Nash Institute. After banking, Michael discovered Austrian Economics and the writings of dozens of authors on the topic.





No Way to Get Pipelines Built

Ottawa has no business owning and operating TMX


onservative Leader Andrew Scheer has claimed that if he were prime minister, he would build the Trans Mountain pipeline by invoking constitutional powers and banning foreign funding from being used to oppose the project.



According to Tom Flanagan, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Calgary, problems with compulsory consultations and the acquisition of contiguous land can be overcome by expropriation. “Acting under legislation and legal precedent that defines processes and provides appropriate compensation, regulatory authorities can take pos-

session of land required for essential projects—including corridor pipelines,” Flanagan says. While acknowledging that expropriation is not a perfect process, Flanagan asserts that, without it, “We would not have many pipelines, power lines, roads, bridges, or rapid transit lines—plus any number of non-corridor projects like hospitals and parks—

Getty Images

Government doesn’t produce infrastructure. Instead, it uses legalized force and taxpayer transfers to hire contracting companies to build and maintain it.

making it difficult even to imagine modern technological society.” Common thinking is that without coercive power of government in Canada, there would be few or no pipelines, power lines, roads, bridges and so on. There would be firms extracting oil and gas where these resources are located, generators of electricity located elsewhere, suppliers of all other

goods and services throughout the country and your house somewhere in the mix—and every private citizen involved would be standing around, thoroughly confused. How are things to get from where they are to where, when and what final consumers want them to be? There are plenty of incentives for people to build pipelines, power lines, roads, bridges, rapid transit lines, hospitals and parks. But government interventionism stifles the ability and capability of private provision. The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion offers a recent and dramatic example. Two days before Kinder Morgan Canada’s May 31 deadline for assurance that the company would actually be able to build its planned Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project, (TMX) the federal government announced it would buy the whole project for $4.5 billion. The headline price tag did not include the cost to actually build the second pipeline, which the federal government committed to do. Construction costs for the 1,150-kilometre twinning project could be as high as $9.3 billion. On August 30, the same day Kinder Morgan Canada shareholders voted 99 per cent in favour of selling the pipeline and expansion project to the Canadian government, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned the federal government’s approval for TMX. Construction on the project was halted, and the project returned to a review phase for the purpose of assessing the impacts of tanker traffic and to consult more extensively with Indigenous communities. Canadians are witnessing yet another unfortunate example of how

free enterprise produces vehicles, appliances and other consumer goods faster than our government can build pipelines, transmission lines, roads, schools, parks and hospitals. The belief that only government can furnish these goods is fallacious. The means to provide them is not limited to legislated takings by way of taxes, regulations and expropriation. In fact, government doesn’t produce infrastructure. Instead, it uses legalized force and taxpayer transfers to hire contracting companies to build and maintain it. And even here, governments are at a competitive disadvantage. At an increasing rate, infrastructure assets that deliver goods and services are being privatized, from health care to the movement of passengers and freight across toll roads and rail networks to the distribution of energy and other products through ports and pipelines. The reason for this privatization is purely economic: central planning and government ownership cannot improve upon the self-regulating nature of market processes and private ownership in determining how resources are allocated based on individuals acting in their own self-interest. 

Danny Le Roy, PhD., is an economics professor at the University of Lethbridge where he is also coordinator of the Agricultural Studies program. Areas of research include commodity production, marketing and trade, government interventionism and Austrian Economics. He blogs occasionally at mises.ca.





CAEPLA Commitment What Enbridge calls the "CAEPLA Commitment" is really a commitment to you, the pipeline landowner. It is also a commitment to your neighbours, fellow energy corridor residents, and all Canadians. It is a commitment CAEPLA was privileged to help bring about.


here was a CAEPLA landowner agreement in place on the Alberta Clipper pipeline ten years ago. We have built off that initial agreement and improvements have been made. From that early relationship with CAEPLA, and the good history we have from those days with “leaving the right-of-way (RoW) as good as or

better than when we came,� a positive relationship continues to this day. We have one CAEPLA monitor on each of the nine spreads. The monitor is a mechanism for individual landowners to communicate their questions and concerns directly to the monitor who in turn communicates directly to spread CM or ACM. From this we can respond and answer in real time and resolve or answer their inquiries and questions. That is a direct line of reporting. No lag time.

The Role of CAEPLA Monitors

A CAEPLA monitors will attend all inspector and construction meetings onsite. B CAEPLA monitors ensure any issues or concerns raised find quick resolution. Enbridge management ensures actions are taken to rectify where required. C We meet quarterly with CAEPLA directors to provide project updates; discuss questions or concerns; improvements required; what is working well.



Enbridge's Core Values Culture: What we accept, and don’t accept goes beyond our safety culture. Quality Culture: We expect a high-quality installed product. Environmental Culture: We expect environmental quality adherence to Enbridge and regulatory commitments and requirements. Inspection Culture: We expect our inspection companies to ensure a quality pipe install well documented through their daily reporting, and easily evidenced when required.

Issues discussed at a CAEPLA Directors quarterly meeting in 2009: Many of these issues are still prevalent today.



2 Erosion on subsoil and topsoil. Wind and water. 3

Compacted soil.


Dust control.

5 Follow the biosecurity protocols and requirements listed in the EPP and Environmental alignment sheets. EPP is very clear on cleaning requirements and locations.

Left and bottom right Getty Images; top right courtesy Enbridge

6 Parking pickups on the road at road crossings. 7

Geotextile left behind in topsoil.

8 Landowner approved water pump off locations. The days of throwing blue hose over topsoil piles and pumping away are over. 9 Respect landowners. along the RoW.

Core Values in Practice

Values of Safety, Respect, Integrity: Carry these values with you through the project and beyond.

Landowner Dust Control Mitigation Signage

This type of signage will not be required on our project.

Respect for fellow workers, locals along the line, landowners, motel managers, waitresses and bartenders, respect and integrity through all stages of construction, on and off the RoW.

Treat landowners, co-workers and the communities we will call home for the duration of the project with respect.

Drive courteously, especially on rural farm roads with large equipment and narrow surfaces.

➥ ➥

Be patient. Don’t dust out landowners.

Contractor Required Mitigation Signage

➥ ➥ ➥ ➥

Examples of signage required.

Patience and courtesy while driving to and from work. Rural narrow road driving skills required. Many hazards on our drives. 





Open Season on Ranchers Lack of respect for property rights in Saskatchewan allows unethical hunters to trespass and terrorize landowners




am a Saskatchewan rancher, and I fear for the lives of my family and our employees. This may sound far-fetched in a country like Canada; we are far from the crime rates of big cities, and generally lead very peaceful, if isolated, lives. Yet every year, as November approaches, so does the anxiety that accompanies hunting season.

Alamy Stock Photo

Even with a picture of trespassers on our land, the reality of the "no hunting" sign laying on the ground, rather than nailed to the fence post, gives the offending hunters the legal ‘out’ they need. Saskatchewan is one of the last provinces not to require expressed permission to access land. This includes access for hunting and other forms of recreation, which means the landowner must post “no hunting” and “no trespassing” signs to deter intrusions. The typical and idyllic picture of cattle grazing the countryside is no longer applicable during white-tail deer season, which runs from September to December. Now, hunting season means that cattle are nervous and fearful. They are difficult to work with because the sound of firearms can be heard popping throughout the day, every day. The herds are driven through and stirred up by strange vehicles, and much of the time they are on the run because holes in fences have become the norm. The worst part is that I understand completely how the cattle feel because I am also afraid. As ranchers and landowners, we have seen a steady increase in misuse of our land, leading not only to concerns for property and livestock safety but for human safety. In our area of Saskatchewan, the unethical few have given all hunters a bad reputation. What began as small annoyances on farming property—gates left open or livestock disturbed—have escalated into far more serious concerns. Open gates are now minor complaints—in fact, we applaud those who actually choose to use a gate, rather than drive through the fence. Several years ago, we took the time and expense to post “no hunting” across the entirety of our ranch. This is a considerable job, one that takes weeks of labour and hundreds of signs.

As feared, it didn't solve the problem. Take a moment and imagine yourself as a rancher. Your fence in one of the pastures is down and must be fixed to keep your cattle safe. This broken section of fence happens to be in a poplar tree bluff, a beautiful little sheltered area that is usually a peaceful spot to work in. While out there, miles from the nearest person, you hear the roar of a truck engine followed by the slam of a door. As your brain processes what is happening, you hear the cracking of branches as a deer runs through the very bush you are standing in, and you recognize the trouble you are in. As guns are fired, you yell out, hoping whoever is shooting will hear you. This story is not a story at all. It is a memory turned cautionary tale that is burned into our brains with all the permanence of any traumatic event. My husband was lucky to make it out of the trees that day without injury. When he felt safe enough to emerge from the bluff that day, it was no surprise to find hunters standing there sheepishly holding their guns. The hunters, of course, did not have permission to be hunting on our land. They had not only driven through the fence to get to that spot, but one of the "no hunting" signs had mysteriously been knocked to the ground. The worst part of this entire situation is not just fear in that moment and it is not the frustration from yet another fence driven through. By far, the worst part is the feeling of helplessness in knowing that it will continue to happen, possibly by these same offenders. You see, even when hunters are caught in the act, the laws about hunting on private property in Sas-

katchewan are almost unenforceable. Even with a picture of trespassers on our land, the reality of the "no hunting sign" laying on the ground, rather than nailed to the fence post, gives the offending hunters the legal 'out' they need. It is a horrible feeling to know that you cannot protect yourself or your family from such situations. Agriculture has changed significantly since our trespassing laws were originally created. Gone are the days when cattle were only on pasture for the short summer months. Today, our cattle graze 365 days per year. This means that farmers are also on the land, caring for their livestock for each of those 365 days. Gone, too, are the days of small farms where the crop is harvested long before hunting season. Today, crops, both standing and swathed, are driven over and destroyed during hunting season. The agricultural world is changing, and our laws must change to keep everyone safe. Changing and enforcing laws to keep both property and people safe is not intended to end or even hinder important activities such as hunting. Asking permission to enter and hunt upon privately owned land is not only a simple thing to do, it is also the ethical thing to do. To those who do hunt ethically, we are grateful for your efforts and wish you happy trails. 

Adrienne Ivey is a rancher, mother and communicator. She ranches in east central Saskatchewan with her husband and two children and blogs at viewfromtheranchporch.com.





CAEPLA, Construction Monitors and You Line 3 Replacement proves the future of land management is here


ince the spring of 2017, Infocus Management and Consulting has supplied independent third-party monitors every day to the Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Project (L3RP). These monitors verify daily that the 125-page settlement agreement between CAEPLA and Enbridge is being followed. The agreement is a requirement of the permit Enbridge received from the National Energy Board (NEB) to build this pipeline. Thus far, with minor exceptions which have been addressed promptly, Enbridge personnel and contractors have been fulfilling the parameters of the agreement. The result is a pipeline construction achieving higher standards for soil handling and



biosecurity than previously witnessed on any major linear project of its kind. To date, L3RP has been audited by NEB inspectors more than 30 times. These inspectors, bearing the scrutiny of a highly engaged public, have returned findings of an extraordinarily clean right-of-way (RoW). No non-compliance reports have been issued, and the few minor imperfections observed have been corrected immediately. The CAEPLA settlement agreement and its constant verification by independent Infocus monitors is a key contributor to this level of quality. In recognition that no agreement is flawless, this particular agreement makes provision for a “joint committee� of Enbridge and CAEPLA representatives to meet regularly with an Infocus representative to verify conditions on the RoW.

The committee has been given the authority, and has developed mutual trust among the parties, to amend the agreement when necessary as the project progresses. Construction practices have been modified to address unforeseen concerns, incorporate technological advancements or adopt methods found preferable since the agreement was signed. These improvements have evolved as a direct result of the observations made by the independent monitoring team.

Lessons Learned One such example of improvement occurred when Infocus monitors reported that pre-construction measurements for soil compaction provided an unreliable baseline, due to unavoidable deficiencies and inconsistencies in data collection methods.

Getty Images

Landowners who have observed these high standards of conduct walk away with new awareness that their own everyday practices can be upgraded to protect their lands and those of their neighbours. Enbridge and CAEPLA joint committee members conferred. They decided to scrap this costly and unhelpful requirement in favour of a commitment to employ proven, quality methods for ditch backfilling and de-compaction of subsoils bearing construction traffic. This solution benefitted both parties and furthered the development of trust between them. Observations of L3RP construction by Infocus third-party monitors have revealed a number of lessons. Monitors attest that a stringent protocol for soil handling (stripping, separation, preservation and restoring after pipeline construction) and biosecurity (mandatory cleaning stations, methods, and record-keeping for all equipment and personnel) can be practical and cost-effective. A little extra time and attention to these details prevents much more costly damage to lands and to loss of public trust and reputation. Monitors who, along with company environmental and craft inspection teams, catch construction deficiencies before they degrade into chronic problems, save the project time, resources and prestige. For instance, when monitors notice inadequate stripping of topsoil, contractors immediately remedy methods before equipment and personnel have left the area. This saves the expense of time and further damage when crews make corrections immediately. Work quickly brought back into compliance with high standards builds trust among landowners, regulators and the broader community. Monitors are cataloguing lessons learned from L3RP and its settlement agreement. Their observations are helping the parties develop standards

for soil and weather conditions that are more precise and less subject to interpretation or conflict. Yet Infocus monitors caution against the foolhardiness of prescribing certain standards or methods for all locations when soil and weather conditions vary greatly along a span of 1,000 kilometres. For example, the use of a certain piece of equipment for conditioning topsoil during reclamation may be ideal in one location and disastrous in another.

Construction monitors are key to serving CAEPLA members and all impacted landowners Monitors empathize with landowners’ desires to limit the amount of land allotted to permanent pipeline RoW and temporary work space. Yet, they observe first-hand, every day, the negative impact on safety to workers and preservation of topsoil when too little workspace is allotted for proper storage of soils. Monitors have observed how L3RP crews with long-standing work habits can learn to be more careful when handling soils or washing and bleaching equipment. Landowners who have observed these high standards of conduct walk away with new awareness that their own everyday practices can be upgraded to protect their lands and those of their neighbours. Infocus employs monitors with training and experience in pipeline craft inspection, agriculture, landowner relations, environmental inspection and industry regulation. All of these disciplines can be helpful, yet no one type of training guarantees that a monitor will display the required powers of alertness, the nec-

essary diplomacy, and the strength of character to stand alone between the parties to this agreement for the benefit of both parties, the land and the greater public good. Due to the nature of heavy construction and the ever-present possibility of human error, no pipeline project will ever be conducted without some risk of soil admixing, contamination or the spread of weeds. But the record of L3RP to date demonstrates that these risks can be reduced and managed when parties of mutual goodwill and respect agree to treat each other responsibly. Mutual trust is further advanced when a trusted independent third party observes and substantiates compliance. In summary, Infocus monitors are playing a key role in serving not only CAEPLA members, but all impacted landowners, responsible pipeline companies (like Enbridge), government regulators and the public at large. Their meticulous, independent confirmation of proper safety, biosecurity and soil handling practices build confidence among all stakeholders that pipelines can be built safely and with respect toward all lands. To learn more regarding independent monitoring, or to inquire as to how you can become a partner in advancing responsible pipelining, contact CAEPLA or Infocus Land Management at infocusconsulting.ca. î Ź

Infocus is an Aboriginal-controlled Canadian land management company that has been in business for more than 10 years. It is committed to being an honest broker that embraces the model described above.






Conservative Confusion About Property Rights Expropriation is still no way to get pipelines built, but repealing the Indian Act might be


om Flanagan is a political science professor at the University of Calgary and a conservative political activist known for his work with Stephen Harper in the 1990s. He recently wrote an unfortunate piece in The Globe and Mail (September 10, 2018) about Canada’s pipeline situation. Specifically, the legal



trainwreck that is Ottawa’s ongoing boondoggle: the Trans Mountain Pipeline and its expansion. While his analysis of the Federal Court of Appeals ruling is sound for the most part, that’s arguably the easy part. It gets trickier when it comes to suggesting solutions, and that’s where Mr. Flanagan goes wrong. When the Federal Court of Appeals quashed the National Energy Board’s approval of the Trans Moun-

tain Expansion (TMX) in August, the primary issue was insufficient consultation with Indigenous groups. Flanagan points out that, despite numerous Indigenous organizations endorsing the project, six others convinced the court that the consultation process was critically flawed. It’s not clear to anyone what exactly it means for the Crown to satisfactorily carry out its “duty to consult.” The Indigenous groups don’t know. Industry doesn’t know. The government regulators, which represent the Crown and are tasked with upholding these duties, don’t know either.

There would be no ‘duty to consult.’ There would be property owners and project builders negotiating and working together. Pure confusion. Supposedly, the obligations were laid out in the Haida court decision from 2004. But surely anyone looking at these obligations must be struck by how vague they are.

“Consult and ➥ accommodate in

good faith.”

“Engage in ➥ meaningful


“Demonstrate ➥ a willingness to

make changes.”

This is all very touchy-feely, and Flanagan correctly points out that there is no concrete meaning to any of this. The duty to consult is just “whatever the courts say it is.” As a result, this has effectively given a special veto power to Indigenous groups, many of which, along with their well-funded allies, engage in guerilla legal warfare to kill big projects like this. Contrary to the common leftist illusion that Indigenous people are some uniform group with homogeneous interests, many bands desire the wealth and employment brought by major projects like TMX. So, what is Flanagan’s proposal? He half-heartedly laments that Parliament has done nothing to legislatively clarify what “duty to consult” should mean, but he says it wouldn’t matter, as major corridor projects like TMX are challenging because unanimity is difficult to obtain. Flanagan thinks the vital tool for

these situations is expropriation. That is, having the government simply take the required land “in the public interest” and providing “appropriate compensation.” This is not an uncommon position by any means. In fact, the expropriation proposition was echoed by Alberta Conservative Senator Doug Black. He suggested using the Constitution Act to expropriate the entire Trans Mountain pipeline corridor. Flanagan admits that expropriation is not a perfect solution, but without it, modern civilization would be impossible. This is what the pro-expropriation side always tells us. Without the government’s ability to forcibly take someone’s land, we are to believe that we’d all be living in the Stone Age. And what kind of fool would prefer the Stone Age to our wonderful industrial society? Case closed. But just because it is in some cases difficult to get agreement doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Actually, the opposite is true. Companies tend to bid down the value of agreements because they know they have the authority of regulators to fall back on should their standard negotiations fail. Expropriation is not required. The proposed Eagle Spirit Pipeline and the massive LNG Canada project show that cooperation among relevant stakeholders is certainly possible not only in theory but in practice. Mr. Flanagan recognizes that Indigenous people essentially have no property rights, but rather a weird legal situation where everything revolves around collective action. “[W]e have no equivalent legislation for First Nations’ property rights," Flanagan writes.

Quite true, and this is a massive problem in our country. But Flanagan handwaves the issue and proposes expropriation as a “get out of jail free card" for Ottawa’s pipeline project mess. In any case, Flanagan’s point is confused. All reserve land is basically Crown land. The federal government can’t really expropriate its own land per se, it can just administer one way or another. That’s why there is this “duty to consult” instead of negotiations with individual Indigenous property owners. Expropriation is a cudgel that beats landowners, not Indigenous people. The correct approach is not to have Parliament expropriate land to get major projects completed. This breeds conflict and resentment rather than unity and harmonization of different interests. And, given the historical conflict between the West and Ottawa, Flanagan might as well be calling for a foreign government authority to plunder Canadians. The solution is more respect for property rights, not less. But that means tackling one of Canada’s toughest issues of all. It would mean repealing the Indian Act (or at least dramatically amending it), abolishing the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, opening up Crown land for appropriation and homesteading, and granting our Indigenous people real property rights like other Canadians. At that point, there would be no “duty to consult.” There would be property owners and project builders negotiating and working together. And that’s a real solution. 





Photo by Monique Wiendels



The Law of the Landowners

Long-time CAEPLA counsel Paul Vogel reflects on decades of fighting for your property rights


or more than three decades, Paul Vogel has worked for landowners forced into fights they never wanted and has seen many victories. But his efforts to bring ammunition to the underdogs in battles over land use began with one case close to home. Back in the late 1980s, the Ontario-based litigator had ongoing conversations with a neighbour who was struggling with pipeline issues. “He looked like he would have apoplexy when talking about the pipelines,” Vogel recalls. Vogel told the frustrated farmer his first step to finding a solution lay in going to a regulatory hearing. And he was right. “We did a hearing and we were successful,” says Vogel. When he began his career, Vogel, who earned his law degree at Os-

Lawyer Paul Vogel, on a farm near London, Ontario.

goode Hall Law School, pursued cases involving consumer advocacy, but the Winnipeg native quickly saw his scope widen. In the 1980s, when interest rates skyrocketed and many farmers struggled, Vogel took on cases dealing with those beleaguered individuals and banks. Not long after, he found himself representing others with energy pipelines or hydro corridors going through their properties. In the early days of pipelines being built, Vogel says companies “steamrolled” over farmers giving them “a few hundred dollars in compensation,” followed by degraded fertility of the soil and decreased crop production. “They did terrible destruction on these farms and [landowners] were never fairly treated or compensated,” he says. “So, they had a lot of grievances and no power. They didn’t know anything about the regulatory system and were not particularly welcome when they showed up at hearings. They were just out in the cold.” Seemingly alone, farmers were

“Typically, what farmers want to do is farm, to be out there on tractors and combines. They are very solitary people and don’t act collectively.”




“We have changed the way pipelines are constructed. There is still a lot of damage, but a lot less, and it's capable of being remediated in a better way.”

unable to defend their land. But Vogel suggested these landowners band together to advocate for their rights. “Typically, what farmers want to do is farm, to be out there on tractors and combines. They are very solitary people and don’t act collectively. It was a whole different prospect for them,” Vogel says. With his neighbour’s case as a catalyst, Vogel went from handling cases in southern Ontario to representing clients from Nova Scotia to Quebec, as well as on Vancouver Island. “Landowners got organized and did another hearing and were successful there and eventually successful in changing how pipelines are built in Canada,” Vogel says. “We could demonstrate when they organized and got together, we could do something.” CAEPLA was formed in 2000 to advocate for landowners up against tough opponents, at times multi-national corporations. Vogel’s firm, Cohen Highley LLP, still represents CAEPLA. “I’m very proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish working with CAEPLA,” he says. Over some three decades, much has improved. Vogel has played a key role in many successes, but he also credits the commitment of his clients. “The first groups that organized took on significant risk in order to advance the landowner causes and were successful and prompted [the] formation of CAEPLA,” he says. “I think they certainly feel more empowered today than they used to, but they would still rather not have pipelines.” Despite representing hundreds of landowners, Vogel says he is always



moved by the unfair situation thrust upon them by what are typically formidable adversaries. “They [landowners] are like abuse victims—that’s what it always reminded me of,” he says. “Part of what was important and interesting to me is the situation of farmers who have had property—in many cases multigenerational farms—feeling invaded.” Many consider themselves to be “stewards of the land and feel very deeply about protecting the land," says Vogel. “Just think about a high-pressure pipeline going through your backyard. You are concerned about your family: What if that thing blows up? Can I take my farm equipment across it? Is my backyard subject to restrictions now on how you use it? You feel an invasion of person and privacy.” Vogel says the work has been exciting and interesting, both from an environmental and legal perspective, and he is honoured to have been able to stand up for what’s right. “Certainly, with the initial groups, they felt abuse—society imposed this on them and they didn’t have much choice,” Vogel says. “It's just wrong and these people needed a voice.” Vogel says better compensation for losses and destruction, now standard across North America, is largely because of these initial groups’ organized efforts. “We have changed the way pipelines are constructed,” he says. “There is still a lot of damage, but a lot less, and it’s capable of being remediated in a better way. Landowners are better off today than they were 30 years ago. I think there is a greater recognition [of] landowners as

stakeholders [who are] substantially affected.” Vogel’s work has not focused exclusively on pipelines, but his work with CAEPLA has been both personally and professionally rewarding. “It requires a considerable amount of patience and endurance and risk to confront the powers that be,” says Vogel. “It’s like David and Goliath.” Vogel says he admires landowners and has learned much from them, even developing friendships with many across Canada. His passion has always underscored his work, as do his own guiding principles. “I think if you treat people with honesty and integrity and do the best job you can for them, that’s a foundation for not only successful professional relationships, but a fulfilled life,” he says. When 67-year-old Vogel is not working, the father of three (with four grandchildren and a “grand-dog”) spends much of his time out at Lake Huron canoeing and biking. He and his wife, Joan, who have been married 46 years, met working for L’Arche Canada—an organization which is part of a global network helping people with intellectual disabilities live, work and make meaningful contributions to their communities. Vogel, whose youngest daughter has Down’s syndrome, was on the founding board of the London L’Arche and sits on the national board.  Nadia Moharib is a multimedia news reporter who loves to serve as a voice for the underdog and tell the story behind the story. Always curious, she seeks opportunities to make a difference.


The CAEPLA Workshop Series


Take the guesswork out of moving your equipment over pipeline rights of way. INTEGRITY DIGS

What they are, what’s involved and what landowners should know.



How developing and enforcing a biosecurity protocol protects your land. PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION 101

Everything landowners need to know about the life of a pipeline. REMEDIATION 101

Everything landowners need to know about protecting and restoring soil after pipeline construction.

Stay tuned for our next series. Check our website often for new dates, topics and locations.

For more information contact: admin@caepla.org or 306-522-5000

DON’T MISS THIS OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN MORE Brought to you by Enbridge and CAEPLA, Canada’s leading advocate for landowner safety and environmental stewardship. CAEPL A .ORG




Cows Save the Planet


ows saving the planet? Why not? An idea that sounds preposterous begins to make sense if we stop to take a soil’seye view of our current environmental predicament. To crouch down to ground level—literally or metaphorically—and see how human and animal activity enhances or does violence to that fine earthy layer that hugs our planet. To appreciate the imperceptible animal–vegetable–mineral dance that keeps us alive. You see, that brown stuff we rush to wash off our hands (or, depending



This excerpt is from Judith D. Schwartz’s book Cows Save the Planet: And Other Improbable Ways of Restoring Soil to Heal the Earth (Chelsea Green Publishing 2013) and is reprinted with permission from the publisher.

on our age, our knees) is the crux of most biological functions that sustain life. Soil is where food is created and where waste decays. It absorbs and holds water; or, if exhausted of organic matter, streams it away. It filters biological toxins and can store enough carbon to reduce carbon dioxide levels significantly and relatively quickly. It is home to more than 95 per cent of all forms of terrestrial life. In any given place the quality of the soil greatly determines the nutritional value of food, how an area weathers drought or storms, and whether an ecosystem is teeming with life or the equivalent of a ghost town. Where do those cows fit in? Cattle, like all grazing creatures, can, if appropriately managed, help build soil.

When moved in large herds according to a planned schedule, livestock will nibble plants just enough to stimulate plant and root growth, trample the ground in a way that breaks apart caked earth to allow dormant seeds to germinate and water to seep in, and leave dung and urine to fertilize the soil with organic matter (aka carbon). The result is a wide variety of grasses and other deep-rooted plants and rich, aerated soil that acts like a great big sponge so as to minimize runoff and erosion. (Cows and their eruptive digestion habits have gotten a bad rap of late—I’ll address the methane question in chapter 1.) The use of ungulates such as cattle in land restoration, a practice called Holistic Management, was developed and

Getty Images

Where do those cows fit in? Cattle, like all grazing creatures, can, if appropriately managed, help build soil.

refined over the decades by Allan Savory, a farmer and rancher and former opposition leader to then-Rhodesia’s white government. With cows or other grazers operating under Holistic Management across large areas of degrading land, this could mean a great deal of soil created or preserved. Leaving behind our bovine herd for the moment, another way to build soil is through zai pits, a traditional growing method from Burkino Faso in West Africa. Small holes are dug into a field, and these capture water and hold soil organic matter (compost and such), both precious resources in drylands that depend on seasonal rainfall—about a third of the world’s landmass. Cattle have a similar impact. Rancher and consultant

Jim Howell told me that this helped Grasslands, LLC’s, South Dakota ranches withstand the spring 2011 torrential rains while nearby properties suffered losses: The herds left hoof-size pockets in the ground, so water pooled rather than forming gullies and eroding the land. If you’re wondering why we want to build soil—isn’t there enough dirt out there already?—consider this: Around the globe, we’re losing topsoil somewhere between ten times (in the United States) and forty times (China and India) faster than we’re generating it, some eighty-three billion tons of it a year. Soil is pounded off fields during a rainstorm; it runs down our rivers; its surfaces are over- and undergrazed; when left uncovered

it loses its organic matter as carbon oxidizes and enters the atmosphere. Despite our collective societal indifference to soil, we’ve all got a large stake in its fortunes. In an oft-quoted and paraphrased line, “Man has only a thin layer of soil between himself and starvation.” Up to now, we’ve been heedless with our soils. And we’re paying the price. On an immediate, day-to-day level, the food we eat is only as good as the soil from which it springs. In part because of soil depletion, most food grown today is less nutritious than that of most previous eras. Research from the UK Ministry of Health determined that a steak today has half the iron of its counterpart fifty years ago thanks to changes in what the




Fortunately, a host of creatures underfoot are ready to make and enhance soil for us—once conditions are right. This is where that microscopic choreography comes in; the cows (or the diggers of holes) are only the catalyst. animals eat. Breeding crops for high yields accelerates the dilution of nutritional content. Over time this can lead to nutrient deficiencies, which a grower may not notice until the effects on the plants are visible, by which point the situation has become extreme. Remember the adage “An apple a day keeps the doctor away”? Over the last eighty years, the calcium content of one medium apple has dropped by nearly half, and levels of phosphorus, iron, and magnesium have fallen more than 80 percent. So to get the same doctor-avoiding kick, you’d now need four or five apples. And this is fruit straight from the tree; processed foods also lose nutrients en route from the field to box or bottle. Some scientists believe today’s high obesity rates are, paradoxically, a symptom of malnutrition due to diets deficient in micronutrients. Which prompts the question: Could the declining nutritional content of our food also be a factor in our rising rates of chronic diseases and allergies, particularly food allergies among children? Fortunately, a host of creatures underfoot are ready to make and enhance soil for us—once conditions are right. This is where that microscopic choreography comes in; the cows (or the diggers of holes) are only the catalyst. Worms, insects, and microorganisms like fungi and bacteria aerate the ground, decompose waste, exchange nourishment (mycorrhizal fungi take glucose from plants and in return help plants assimilate nutrients), and break down rocks into minerals like calcium, magnesium, iron, and zinc that are essential to our health. The herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides widely used in industrial agriculture kill many of these organ-



isms; from the soil’s or soil dweller’s perspective, chemical additives are not such a great thing. With zai, the organic matter in the hollows attracts termites. The termites, in turn, burrow around and create tunnels, allowing water to penetrate the ground rather than evaporate. Though usually regarded as pests, termites in marginal lands play much the same role that earthworms do in greener climes. In Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations, geomorphologist David Montgomery offers numerous cautionary tales of kingdoms, cultures, and empires that squandered their soil and found themselves with nothing left to live on. From the earliest farmers in the Fertile Crescent to the Mayans, Romans, and Easter Islanders, societies have exhausted their land either to scatter and regroup in much-diminished form, or to become lost to history. Not that people didn’t know better. Advice about caring for soil has been passed along since the first primitive hoes broke virgin ground. Luc Gnacadja, executive secretary of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, likes to quote this proverb from the Sanskrit Vedic Scriptures of around 1500 bce: “Upon this handful of soil our survival depends. Husband it and it will grow our food, our fuel and our shelter and surround

us with beauty. Abuse it and soil will collapse and die, taking humanity with it.” More recently, in 1937 Franklin D. Roosevelt made the same point with a nationalistic twist: “A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself.” Despite history’s warnings, the temptation to plant on fragile hillsides, clear forests, push yields of lucrative crops, or otherwise try to squeeze more from the earth proves too great. But today we can’t just pack up our tent and move to more promising turf while leaving the damage behind us. It’s time to start treating soil as the precious resource it is. This doesn’t mean forgoing its bounty— soil is a renewable resource that can respond quickly to watchful stewardship. Since soil is integral to so many biological processes, nurturing and improving it provides us with many paths toward ecological renewal— with returns far greater than what you’ll see at your feet. 

Judith D. Schwartz is a longtime freelance writer whose work has appeared in venues from Glamour and Redbook to The Christian Science Monitor and The New York Times. She is the author of several books, including Cows Save the Planet: And Other Improbable Ways of Restoring Soil to Heal the Earth, Tell Me No Lies: How to Face the Truth and Build a Loving Marriage (coauthored) and The Therapist's New Clothes. She has an MA in counseling psychology and an MS from the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. She lives with her family in Southern Vermont.


Getty Images

A Solution to Pipeline Industry Paralysis Bullying and legal land theft are not the answer— respecting property rights is


AEPLA was founded by landowners concerned about the damage being done to their property when a pipeline project crosses it. Their concerns were not being taken seriously by either the company or the government regulator. These landowners learned early on that the National Energy Board (NEB) was not their friend or protector, as they had been led to believe. Rather, the main purpose of the NEB was to




Instead of dealing fairly with landowners, TransCanada threatened eminent domain and built stolen property into its business plan.

suspend property rights and facilitate projects for industry. By trying to have legitimate landowner issues addressed, CAEPLA— and its predecessors in the pipeline landowner movement—were unfairly branded as “anti-pipeline.” Years ago, Dave Core, founding chair and former CEO of CAEPLA, predicted that disrespecting the property rights of landowners would ultimately backfire on pipeline companies and real anti-pipeline opposition would arise across society. And that’s exactly what wound up happening. The last decade has seen real opposition made up of anti-oil green activists, Indigenous people, media, politicians, bureaucrats and a good chunk of the public, all combining to paralyze Canada’s energy transport industry and even provide stiff opposition in the United States. By disrespecting the property rights of farmers and ranchers through expropriation or the threat thereof, industry alienated not only directly affected landowners but also their families, friends, neighbours, business partners and many others across the energy corridors of rural Canada. Bullying landowners had a ripple effect and many feared that they could be next. This is similar to what happened in Nebraska when ranchers in that state felt their legitimate concerns were being ignored by TransCanada on its Keystone XL project (KXL). Instead of dealing fairly with land-



owners, TransCanada threatened eminent domain (a.k.a. expropriation in Canada) and built stolen property into its business plan. As predicted, it backfired. Badly. Abuse of landowners by what in the U.S. was a foreign company wound up pushing ranchers in the Cornhusker State into the waiting arms of anti-oil, anti-pipeline activists and their Hollywood friends. What became a politicized circus soon stopped KXL dead in its tracks at the Canada-U.S. border, and cost TransCanada shareholders billions. Farmers and ranchers need energy more than the average North American to stay in business and survive on the land. Which is why they and radical greens made such strange political bedfellows. And it is not like farmers and ranchers need any lessons from political greens when it comes to the environment. Their very livelihoods depend on being excellent stewards of the land from generation to generation. The harvest and the number of healthy head of cattle depend on this stewardship of the land. The sustainability of soil and water are paramount. So when a pipeline crosses farmers’ and ranchers’ land, it is a longterm commitment, one I have often likened to a marriage. The relationship could last a half century or longer, and to survive, it needs to be worked at. It makes perfect sense that an agreement needs to be negotiated between company and landowner—an

agreement that respects the property rights of the landowner. Anything less is legalized theft. When expropriation or eminent domain is threatened or used, it stands to reason that there would be push back. But there does not need to be. CAEPLA grew out of a landowner movement that was always committed to finding solutions. Agribusiness is not a natural enemy of energy transport. The two should be able to coexist harmoniously, like any other industry does with its suppliers. CAEPLA’s goal has been to find solutions. We have hired soil experts, legal counsel and other professionals to assist in finding solutions that work for both the landowners and the companies. When companies respect property rights and build pipelines that consequently respect the safety of landowners, as well as the integrity of the soil and water needed to grow our food, it is a “win-win-win.” For landowners, the pipeline industry and the public. Which is why it is important for CAEPLA to cooperate with industry in efforts to find real solutions to ongoing landowner concerns. Such as our involvement with Enbridge, in the University of Calgary research into the decommissioning of pipelines. CAEPLA also successfully lobbied for the creation of a fund to cover costs of pipe removal upon abandonment. This created the abandonment cost estimates process at the NEB, which we will continue participating in even as the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) assumes responsibility.

*(see the article “The Book That Inspired the Creation of CAEPLA,” in Pipeline Observer Summer 2016 issue)

empty perspective rather than an optimistic glass half full. From the founding days of the landowner movement when Peter and Jean Lewington along with Stu and Jocelyn O’Neil mortgaged their farms to hold to account the pipeline company that had ruined the soil on their property,* the objective has always been to have pipelines constructed in a way that respects the environment, safety and property rights of the landowners who live and work over the pipelines “24/7/365.” The nationalization of Trans Mountain turned 2018 into a terrifying year for energy transport. And 2019 could be scarier yet for pipeline landowners with a new Crown corporation as a tenant on their land and the birth of the new CER looming on the horizon. As we have been for nearly a quarter century, CAEPLA will be there, backing landowners and looking for solutions. We hope you’ll join us. 

Photo by Jared Sych

[It’s] not like farmers and ranchers need any lessons from political greens when it comes to the environment. Their very livelihoods depend on being excellent stewards of the land. Further research into soil integrity and remediation is also on our to-do list as we continue to pursue issues our members are interested in. Meanwhile the “anti's”—anti-oil, anti-pipeline, anti-property rights, anti-free enterprise, anti-landown-

er—continue to claim they are all about protecting the environment. But theirs is a classic Chicken Little approach, announcing that “the sky is falling” and therefore everything must suddenly be stopped instead of seeking solutions. It’s a glass half

Annette Schinborn is chief executive officer at CAEPLA, having served previously as COO and director of landowner relations. Before joining the team at CAEPLA, Annette worked with grassroots nonprofits including the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Prairie Centre and the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association. She has worked closely with farmers, ranchers and other landowners on issues such as tax and agricultural policy, energy transport and property rights.





Quality Agreements

What Trans Mountain landowners need to know about Line 3 and the new Crown corporation


or nearly a century, CAEPLA has been on the frontlines tackling pipeline landowner concerns. We have been so successful in resolving landowner issues and compensation that many of our members’ neighbours ask to have pipelines put on their property if a company has signed a contract with us. Which is why, in the aftermath of the catastrophic nationalization of the Trans Mountain pipeline and expansion project (TMX), CAEPLA has been



taking countless calls from worried residents along the TMX corridor. Here is a brief look at what every Trans Mountain pipeline landowner ought to be reflecting on as the reality of a new federal Crown corporation on their property gets real. CAEPLA agreements address many issues that have never been addressed before. They also address issues most pipeline companies won’t

even look at due to their enjoyment of regulatory government privileges: right of entry in Canada, or eminent domain in the U.S. Both are legal land theft, arranging for the transfer of your property to shareholders in energy transport companies. Both act as a kind of subsidy to the company or a deep discount on market rates to lease land. Both are a way to ignore legitimate landowner

At the core of the agreement is a commitment between the parties to engage a group of independent third-party monitors, to ensure that promises made are kept.

Getty Images

I can tell you this: Crown corporations disrespect property rights more than the worst private company. TMX landowners have much to fear. concerns in a way that would never be possible in a commercial lease. Having said that, CAEPLA did not attain our many victories for landowners by simply protesting the special entitlements provided to industry or lobbying government for our own special privileges. Instead, we used our right to freely associate and worked cooperatively with groups of landowners to level the playing field. Our many years of experience in negotiations has resulted in the toughest and most fair contractual agreements ever achieved by landowners who have been imposed upon by federally regulated pipelines. We have negotiated precedent-setting landowner settlement agreements on two major Enbridge projects in the last decade, namely the Alberta Clipper/Southern lights project in 2007 and then the Line 3 Replacement Project in 2015, which is under construction as you read this. The latest Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Project (L3RP) agreement outlines the most stringent obligations for careful soil handling and biosecurity ever seen in the industry. Since its inception in 1959, the National Energy Board (NEB) has consistently undermined landowners and their property rights, preventing us from protecting our properties, families and investments. But by working together to convince Enbridge that there is a better, more cooperative way, we were able to address landowners’ legitimate concerns and get NEB and cabinet approval. This was accomplished even as both the NEB and cabinet bungled landowner and industry initiatives to get pipelines built under undue influence of anti-pipeline activists.

Having said this, I have dealt with Crown-owned energy transport companies when I led CAEPLA over the decades. I can tell you this: Crown corporations disrespect property rights more than the worst private company. TMX landowners have much to fear. Now, more than ever, they will need a proven business advocate to help protect their interests and negotiate a robust business contract. Our early agreements with Enbridge included commitments by the company to address liability for abandoned pipelines and regulatory restrictions on crossing pipelines with agricultural equipment. Other commitments included limiting easement access, location of surface facilities, conducting parameters and compensation for maintenance dig operations, resolution of construction disputes, topsoil preservation, responsibility for drainage issues, weed control, biosecurity, decommissioning of the old pipeline and compensation. CAEPLA, and our member landowner organizations on the L3RP project, made clear to both Enbridge and the regulator the many escalating concerns landowners have. Especially with respect to environmental, social and economic impacts experienced as a result of the continuing expansion of pipeline corridors. Pipeline design and safety concerns related to proposed depth of cover, pipe thickness and future pipeline abandonment, as well as cumulative soil and productivity impacts related to multiple pipeline construction are all among the issues CAEPLA has put on the table with forward-thinking Enbridge. Restrictions on more intensive agricultural land use, future development and deficiencies in current

compensation packages with respect to recognizing continuing financial impacts are also being addressed. The standards on L3RP are a refinement of earlier terms with new Biosecurity Protocols, an agreement regarding the decommissioning of the old pipeline. At the core of the agreement is a commitment between the parties to engage a group of independent third-party monitors, to ensure that promises made are kept. With pipeline construction well underway on the nine spreads of this 1,500-kilometre project crossing three Canadian provinces, I can effectively report on the successes of our settlement and the quality of the relationship between Enbridge and its landowner partners. Enbridge has stressed the importance of the “CAEPLA Agreement” at every kick-off meeting along the corridor. The company understands that addressing landowners’ legitimate concerns is the way to get pipelines built in future. It is committed to building the project from this perspective and has made it clear to its employees, its lands people and the construction contractors that they all must live up to the terms of agreement on all lands, and treat landowners with the greatest respect. Here is the quid pro quo on L3RP: Enbridge has engaged in an almost forensic examination of landowner issues, and continues to engage with CAEPLA to make incremental improvements. In return, we have doubled down on our commitment to help get projects built in a safe, fast and efficient fashion. This is a quadruple win: for landowners, industry, economy and environment. 





The Fungus Beneath Your Feet iStockphoto.com

And why some farmers will be ‘soiling their undies’


id you know that there are more micro-organisms in a teaspoon of healthy soil than there are people on this planet? There is a whole world in the soil—



consisting of bacteria, fungi, nematodes, beetles, mites, earthworms, algae, and so on—that can have profound effects on land productivity. These micro-organisms work together to decompose organic matter, provide nutrients, and can even aid in the control of crop pests. Understanding

this, we have been able to source, culture, and apply certain microbes for the benefit of crops. These include:

Rhizobium Bacteria Any production of legume crops is accompanied by a species from this family of bacteria. Bacteria forms

There are many different types of fungi and bacteria that are able to breakdown hydrocarbons from petroleum-contaminated soils. mutually beneficial relationships with plant roots by fixing nitrogen for the plant in return for carbohydrates from photosynthesis. It is important to have the right strain of rhizobia for the different kinds of pulse crops such as beans, peas, lentils, etc. Benefits to Plants: The production of plant-available nitrogen from rhizobium provides a constant source of nitrogen for plant growth and development. In most cases, plant roots can “leak” excess nitrogen, which can be used by other plants, carry over to next year’s crops or help microbes decompose plant residues. Benefits to Soil: Rhizobia are major contributors to soil nitrogen through the breakdown of legume crop residues. These residues are rich in nitrogen and promote the culture of a diverse soil community. The increased diversity improves soil fertility, nutrient cycling, soil structure, and overall soil health.

Facing page: Getty Images; this page photo courtesy Soil Conservation Council of Canada

Mycorrhizae Fungi This fungus lives in the soil from year to year and forms symbiotic relationships with plant roots. The plants provide the fungi with a source of carbohydrates from photosynthesis, while the colonized mycorrhizae act as extensions on the plant roots. Not all plants are able to form this relationship. Canola is a popular crop that unfortunately is not able to form symbiotic relationships with this fungi, and often reduces populations in the soil. Benefits to Plants: The greatest benefit is better uptake of nutrients, particularly phosphorus, and water. This al-

lows for healthy, vigorous plants that can better withstand stresses such as disease, salinity and drought. Benefits to Soil: The better root development caused by this fungi can have immediate effects on soil structure. Most notably, better permeability of air and increased water infiltration that leads to increased erosion, crusting and compaction resistance.

Petroleum-Utilizing Microbes There are many different types of fungi and bacteria that are able to break down hydrocarbons from petroleum-contaminated soils. This has become an area of focus in environmental science to help remediate ecosystems after oil and gas spills, as well as the shutting down of rigs. Benefits to Plants: It is rare to find plant growth on contaminated sites. Like microbes, some plants are able to tolerate certain levels of contamination. Usually, these plants have little to no value—they are often considered weeds. If remediated properly, the soils can become productive again over time. Benefits to Soil: Breaking down the hydrocarbons allows for the survival of other species that could not live in the soil before. Establishing a healthy soil ecosystem on contaminated sites is essential to soil health and structure for the production of plants. 

“Soil Your Undies” If you would like to test how healthy your soil community is, all you have to do is soil your undies! This year, the Soil Conservation Council of Canada introduced the “Soil Your Undies” challenge to demonstrate to growers the importance of biological activity in the soil.

To participate: Purchase a pair of 100 per cent cotton white briefs. Bury them in a narrow sixinch trench in the spring, and mark the spot with a flag. After two months, dig up your undies and evaluate the decomposition. If the undies look like chewed-up rags, then the soil is full of life and biological activity. The opposite is true if the underwear comes out looking much the same, suggesting that the soil is tired and overused. Give it a try this spring and evaluate different parts of the field (cropped area vs. right-of-way vs. fence line) to get an idea of the productivity potential of your soil!

Andrea De Roo, M.Sc. P.Ag, wishes to credit the following sources: Culley, J.L.B., B.K. Dow, E.W. Presant and A.J. Maclean, 1981. Impacts of installation of an oil pipeline on the productivity of Ontario cropland. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Government of Canada. Follow Andrea on Twitter @AgKnowledge06.





A Practical Proposal for the People’s Party of Canada


The NEB is no friend of landowners, industry or the environment —Maxime Bernier should promise to abolish it



Photo illustration by David Willicome, photo source: Agência Brasil, commons.wikimedia.org


here’s a new political party in town. It’s the People’s Party of Canada (PPC), an upstart created by former Conservative MP Maxime Bernier. Disillusioned with the federal Conservative establishment and its kowtowing to special interests, Bernier decided to go his own way. Despite some favourable early polls, it’s impossible to say right now what effect this party will have on Canada’s political landscape. The good news is, unlike leaders of other parties, “Mad Max” has been clear: he is proproperty rights and pro-pipeline. This raises the question of how the PPC might approach the interplay of landowner and industry interests with government regulators. Well, we have a few suggestions for him. First, let’s keep in mind that in his campaign for the Conservative Party leadership, Bernier wasn’t afraid to propose some fairly radical ideas by Canadian standards. This earned him the nickname “Mad Max,” which he happily embraced. To pick a few examples, he went after Ottawa’s sacred cows, like the “supply management” system, as we have euphemistically named our cartelized dairy system. He also proposed eliminating the CRTC’s role in regulating the telecom industry. Maybe it was all just campaign talk, but the prevailing theme in Bernier’s leadership effort was reducing the influence of Ottawa. For those who favour smaller government, this was a breath of fresh air. Most politicians will go no further than proposing tepid and fiddly “reforms” or setting up committees to

study how a government agency can do a better job. Invariably, this leads to spending a bunch of money producing reports that no one reads, and nothing changes. In the spirit of Bernier’s willingness to propose big ideas, here is a bold proposal for a policy that would show Bernier’s new party is committed to property rights, Canada’s energy industry, and the environment. Bernier should abolish the National Energy Board (NEB). If Ottawa goes ahead with Bill C-69, then abolish the Canadian Energy Regulator. Everybody hates the NEB. Landowners hate it because it facilitates government and industry interfering with their property rights. Environmentalists hate it because they see it as being captured by industry. But industry also hates it because they have to jump through the endless hoops of the regulatory circus, often to no avail. And many landowners and industry types hate it because they see it as being captured by eco extremists. Of course, abolishing the NEB prompts the question, “What would we replace it with?” The Trudeau government’s Canadian Energy Regulator is supposed to address the failings of the NEB. Doesn’t something need to cover the NEB’s current job? As American economist Thomas Sowell put it: “No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: But what would you replace it with? When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?” Answer: When you put out a fire,

you don’t replace it with anything. It’s okay to just put out the fire. The NEB is a fire that needs to be put out. For that matter, so does the very idea of this awful model for a federal regulator. Provinces already have regulators for these matters. The Constitution gives them jurisdiction over their own natural resources, and that should be the end of it. If Saskatchewan and Alberta want to make a pipeline between them, let them work it out. If Alberta wants to build a pipeline to the United States, that should be Alberta’s business. And the NEB isn’t that old. Or venerable. It was created in 1959; Canada was building interprovincial and international pipelines to move petroleum products long before that. The objective should be to reduce Ottawa’s role in these matters to the absolute minimum. Provinces have their own energy regulators, and counties assert their own influence as well. These processes are flawed and problematic, but they are more local and so give property owners relatively more influence. Some property rights advocates might say this is insufficient. Ottawa should go all the way and outlaw local and provincial authorizations of expropriating land. This is appealing, but it implies an encroachment of bigger political authorities over small ones. We must always be wary of top-down political control over other jurisdictions. The idea that any government thousands of miles away should micromanage local affairs is the opposite

With expropriation power stripped from the far less accountable federal government, we could work to outlaw it at the provincial and local level altogether.




The NEB isn’t that old. Or venerable. It was created in 1959; Canada was building interprovincial and international pipelines to move petroleum products long before that. of real confederation and economic cooperation, and we should oppose it in principle. The correct approach is to decentralize the expropriation powers—to wit, take them away from Ottawa. Then, with expropriation power stripped from the far less accountable federal government, we could work to outlaw it at the provincial and local level altogether. Our southern neighbours provide an interesting illustration of how this can work. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo vs. City of New London decision said that a local government could exercise its expropriation powers for public use that benefits the public.

Many said this decision was terrible because the Supreme Court should have simply denied the right to expropriate and preserved property rights. But in the state of Indiana, lawmakers saw the Kelo decision and passed a law that specifically addressed this issue. Basically, a state government rejected the opinion of the Supreme Court and passed its own laws tailored to the problem. Rather than permitting the government to take private property for the sake of “promoting economic development,” Indiana’s statute established far narrower circumstances in which this is permitted. This example shows how federal

control over local affairs isn’t needed. Remember, an individual or group with limited political power will always be in a better position to influence more local governments over federal governments. It’s much more difficult to fight powerful special interests at the federal level than in a more local political arena. When you move up the ladder of political jurisdiction, the common person’s influence tends to become weaker and weaker. Calling for the abolition of the NEB would be a major indication that the People’s Party of Canada is on the side of property owners. 

Visit caepla.org

Read the latest articles, discover upcoming community events, connect with other landowners and learn how CAEPLA is on the front lines of the fight for your property rights.

www.caepla.org 36



Crews practicing boom techniques at an emergency response deployment exercise on the Fraser River, near Hope BC, in July 2017.

Preparation is Key Serious pipeline incidents are rare, but companies are ready to cooperate for rapid response

Photo courtesy Trans Mountain


his past August, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) members who operate transmission pipelines collaborated on a joint emergency management exercise (JEME). They practiced enacting the pipeline industry’s mutual emergency assistance agreement (MEAA), a commitment to help each other in case of an emergency. The MEAA means the knowledge, expertise, equipment and resources of all members are available to one

another in the unlikely event of an incident if requested. “We are in Ottawa to showcase how the transmission pipeline industry collaborates and prepares for response. We hope to learn and take the learnings to focus our emergency response capabilities across the country,” Chris Bloomer, president and CEO of CEPA, told attendees at the exercise. This exercise, which government officials and regulators attended, was important for CEPA members to have a solid understanding of the steps involved in enacting MEAA, and to

practice those steps. It was also an opportunity for employees to prepare for an emergency scenario, including applying the processes and procedures set out in emergency management plans.

Pipeline incidents are rare The recent JEME is just one of an average of 400 emergency exercises that CEPA members hold annually— that’s more than one for every day of the year. It’s an important part of reaching the industry’s goal of zero incidents.




[Pipeline operators] work as long as it takes to return an area to its undisturbed state, including using oil spill containment and recovery equipment, employing clean-up specialists and following the polluter pays model.

1 Deployment – A full-scale simulation of a real emergency. This includes the actual deployment of emergency response equipment and involvement from first responders and stakeholders. It’s intended to evaluate the coordination of the response in a realistic scenario. 2 Functional – A functional exercise focuses on evaluating the overall effectiveness of the plans, procedures and functions in emergency response. It includes a simulated deployment of equipment and resources. 3 Tabletop – This exercise is about testing the plans, procedures and functions of a response in a groupdiscussion format. Its purpose is to encourage participants to problem solve and identify opportunities for improvement. 4 Drill – A drill tests a specific function or operation within an emergency event. Participants can practice specific skills, receive equipment or process training, or prepare for a more complex exercise. 38


Preparation is part of a comprehensive, proactive approach While preparation is critical, pipeline operators seek to prevent incidents from happening in the first place. That’s why they take a comprehensive and proactive approach to mitigating, preparing for, responding to and managing incidents. Pipeline operators take a proactive approach by:

➥ Ensuring pipeline infrastructure is well-designed, comprehensively maintained and monitored 24/7

➥ Focusing on third-party damage prevention and education initiatives

➥ Using innovative leak-detection technologies However, if an incident does occur, they are ready to respond immediately—from the first warning in an

actively-monitored control room. In the event of an incident, the pipeline is shut down and the operators focus on protecting the people, environment and assets. They work with first responders and local authorities while communicating essential information to the public. CEPA members work as long as it takes to return an area to its undisturbed state, including using oil spill containment and recovery equipment, employing clean-up specialists and following the polluter pays model for taking responsibility for an incident. Knowing what to do in an emergency is critical. For CEPA members, preparation is one of the most important safety measures to ensure readiness in the unlikely event a pipeline incident occurs. For more information on pipeline emergency management, visit aboutpipelines.com/en/emergency-response. 

This page photo courtesy Trans Mountain; facing page photo by Steve Sutherland

While pipeline incidents are rare, CEPA members must be ready to respond quickly. Emergency response exercises are planned and executed to make sure everyone has in-depth training and practice experience with different incident scenarios, equipment and environments. These simulations are crucial in keeping employees’ response skills sharp and ready at a moment’s notice. There are four types of emergency response exercises that pipeline employees participate in:

Crews practicing ice-response techniques at a full-scale winter emergency response exercise held near Jasper, AB, in January 2018.


Going to the Mat for Safety and Environment Landowners and energy companies embrace best practises and a new working relationship


fall that included copious amounts of rain, heavy snow, and freezing temperatures wasn’t good for the energy industry, and it certainly wasn’t good for farmers. Pipelines couldn’t get their pipe backfilled

or their right-of-ways cleaned-up, and farmers couldn’t get their grain off or their straw baled. Although very different, both farmers and energy companies have their own financial bottom lines that need to be met at the end of the year, regardless of weather conditions. Just like cattle or grain, energy

is a commodity that is vulnerable to changing conditions, and yet in both the farming and energy industries, there is one constant. That constant is the land. Farmers have been stewards of the land from the very beginning because they understand the fundamental principle that they need the land to




Energy companies are slowly beginning to realize that a lasting relationship with landowners can be mutually beneficial, as landowners can work to steward the land to the benefit of all.

make their living. Energy companies are slowly beginning to realize that a lasting relationship with landowners can be mutually beneficial, as landowners can work to steward the land to the benefit of all. Western Canada has undergone tremendous change since the discovery of oil, and it is changing again. Energy industry companies owned and operated by farmers and landowners are changing the way that business is done on a daily basis. A problem that used to be solved by paying farmers mediocre sums of money (at best), is now being solved by working with farmers to find a solution that benefits everyone. These solutions can be as simple as installing a new barbed wire fence instead of patching together the old one, and they can be as complex as reintroducing wetland inhabitants to rebuild an ecologically stable environment. Galloway Construction Group in Ponoka, Alberta, is owned, led, and operated by landowners. Both the president and the CEO operate separate grain and cattle operations in the central Alberta region and they understand what it means to be stewards of the land. This is a value that is passed down throughout the entire company, right down to the green hire



who wonders why trucks and equipment are regularly washed. It doesn’t take long for that worker to learn just how serious an impact diseases like clubroot can have on a farmer’s operation and that he is responsible to help mitigate that risk. DURA-BASE mats are quickly spreading across the Western Canadian landscape, and their reputation as the most durable and best all-around access solution is being spread from landowner to boardroom and beyond. Five years ago, Galloway Construction Group noticed the benefits that DURA-BASE mats provide compared to traditional wooden mats, and they seized the opportunity to partner with Newpark Mats and Integrated Services and become the Western Canadian distributor. Because Galloway is operated by landowners, they were able to recognize that there was enough traffic on the road, so why fight to pass combines and swathers more than necessary? The lightweight and non-porous nature of DURA-BASE mats eliminates upwards of 66 per cent of truck traffic associated with access matting, as well as crosscontamination. Years ago, your father or your grandpa may have told you that if you

aren’t going to do something right, there is no point in doing it at all. That adage still holds true today. If energy companies in today’s climate are not willing to go the extra mile and work with farmers to create a quality product they can both be proud of, then why do it? Whether you’re building a pipeline, a gas plant, a transmission line, or a highway, don’t be the company that gets left behind: use DURA-BASE composite access mats on the project and work with farmers and landowners to build a better tomorrow. 

Chace Elliott has more than nine years’ experience in the oil and gas and heavy construction industries, working with Galloway Construction Group and founding his own company. He holds a master’s degree from Dalhousie University in resource and environmental management. His international experience includes partnerships and expansion opportunities between Canada and the U.S., and his current research involves studying the correlation between the spread of noxious weeds and the construction of linear projects.


Facing page photo by Steve Sutherland; this page photo courtesy Enbridge

Dave Core presents at a media event for Enbridge's L3RP's informational tour.

CAEPLA Insights on L3RP The First Pipeline Project "Built to Spec" for Landowners Recently, CAEPLA's CEO Annette Schinborn and Director of Special Projects Dave Core participated in Enbridge’s Line 3 Replacement Program (L3RP) informational tour. At a major media event, Core delivered a speech in which he explained why CAEPLA pushed for L3RP, and why it has such broad support among landowners and energy corridor residents. Here’s what he said:


ood afternoon everyone. There is a reason the Line 3 Replacement Program, or “L3RP,” is so far, and by far, the most important and successful pipeline project in Canada. I want to thank Al Monaco and his team at Enbridge for the opportunity




to be here today on this right-of-way tour. It was Al’s foresight and the vision of key members of his team, along with buy-in across the company, that has made this innovative project a reality. We are here today in the heartland, in energy corridor country, where families live and work with pipe on their property 24/7, 365. This is meaningful because it is the people who have skin in the game who care most about the things L3RP represents: safety and environmental stewardship. If you are an energy corridor resident, Line 3 Replacement is about peace of mind. The peace of mind that comes when pipeline landowners partner with industry to produce the safest, most environmentally friendly project we have ever seen. L3RP has CAEPLA’s stamp of approval because Enbridge embraced



input from the directly affected families who live with Line 3 as a reality in the ground. And CAEPLA will be there on the ground, with our wholly independent construction monitors who are there to prevent problems before they happen and answer directly to landowner committees. When you listen to the directly affected, including many of our Indigenous fellow pipeline landowners, you are going to get results all Canadians can have confidence in. L3RP is, of course, the marquee project of Enbridge. But we at the Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowner Associations like to take some credit, too. Because the standards established for L3RP are something we in the pipeline landowner movement have been working toward for more than half a century, and something CAEPLA

Photo courtesy Endbridge

L3RP sets a new standard for energy transport projects that Canadians can have confidence and take comfort in for decades to come.

has been advocating for 25 years. Construction of this pipeline marks the first time in history a major North American pipeline project has rolled out in full accordance with landowner values and priorities built into the blueprint. L3RP will be the first pipeline practically “built to spec” for landowners. Our members’ support for L3RP was overwhelming, which is why CAEPLA last year urged Natural Resources Canada to expedite approval. This means Canadians can put a lot of faith in this project. So much of the scaremongering around pipelines in media and politics is allegedly based on safety and environmental concerns. Directly affected pipeline landowners across the Prairies can vouch that those concerns have been addressed, and then some. This project has something for everybody. If you care about the Canadian economy, this replacement means more of our energy will reach the market. If you care about an injection of money into the Prairie economy from well-paid construction jobs, L3RP does that, too. If you are a Prairie farmer, you can get your grain shipped because bitumen will not be creating rail car backlogs. If the integrity of soil and water along the Energy Corridor is your concern, the tightened safety standards and cutting-edge technology of L3RP goes a long way to addressing that worry. And finally, if you care about the carbon footprint of our energy sector, the high-tech efficiency of this pipe will mean lower carbon emissions. No pipeline is perfect. But L3RP sets a new standard for energy transport projects that Canadians can have confidence and take comfort in for decades to come. 

Deep roots. We didn’t start learning to drive a tractor at 10 years old. Or rise to the challenge of running the family farm. But we do help power the machinery that will empower generations of farmers to come. When the energy you invest in farming meets the energy we fuel it with, sustaining a nation happens.