PIPEINE OBSERVER SPRING 2019

PIPELINE

SPRING 2019

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF ENERGY AND PIPELINE LANDOWNER ASSOCIATIONS

CONTINENTAL ASSOCIATION OF ENERGY AND PIPELINE LANDOWNER ASSOCIATIONS

OBSERVER

FORGING NEW RELATIONSHIPS Building an alliance between landowners and pro-energy Indigenous communities

BILL C-69

Why getting it right is the key to Canada’s future

REAL RECONCILIATION An Indigenous leader weighs in

MEET KEVIN AVRAM

A true hero in the grassroots, free market movement CAEPL A .ORG

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

1

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

CONTENTS

SPRING 2019

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF ENERGY AND PIPELINE LANDOWNER ASSOCIATIONS

07 “True reconciliation... [is] to bring two groups back together for the common good.”

–Ellis Ross

12

31

04 07 10 12 14 17 20

Indigenous Cultural Monitors

22 26 29 31 34 37 39 41

How to Help Indigenous Communities

The IAMC and how CAEPLA is protecting your rights

Poverty or Pipelines?

The NCC's Dale Swampy weighs in

Fungi Feed on Oil

How mushrooms can help clean polluted soil

Real Reconciliation

MLA Ellis Ross reflects on reconciliation

Running the Numbers How data and technology aid landowners Pipeline Politics

Getting Bill C-69 right is the key to our future

No Defense Against Expropriation

Canadian landowners are really just tenants

Exploring Indigenous property rights

Kevin Avram, Unsung Hero

An unsung hero of Canada's free market movement

A Window Into Pipeline Operation

Enbridge's pipeline model is an interactive affair

Small-Town Land Swindle

How one Manitoba couple was stripped of their land

Carry the Kettle

Indigenous claims and private property

No More Divide and Conquer

Landowners and pro-energy Indigenous join forces

Ending Indigenous Activist Veto

True property rights benefit all Canadians

Back by Popular Demand

CAEPLA's Workshop Series connects landowners

CORRECTION In the story "Quality Agreements" from the Fall 2018 issue, the first sentence should have read "For nearly a quarter century..."

Cover, iStock

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 ©2019 CAEPLA. Advertising information: advertising@caepla.org | Editorial: editor@caepla.org Administration: admin@caepla.org | caepla.org | Twitter: @CAEPLA

Media & Marketing Solutions

Published on behalf of CAEPLA 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

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

3

B Y D AV E C O R E

Indigenous Cultural Monitors Accessing Private Lands The latest government assault on pipeline landowners is a threat to all private property in Canada

4

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER CAEPL A .ORG

F

ew people in Canada, let alone landowners, are aware of an unprecedented showdown that appears to be looming between private property rights and Indigenous rights of access—ground zero is Enbridge’s workspace and right-of-way on the Line 3 Replacement Program Project (L3RP), extending more than 1,000 kilometres across Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.

CAEPLA has become aware that members of the Indigenous Advisory Monitoring Committee (IAMC), a committee formed by the federal government consisting of Indigenous and government representatives, including the National Energy Board (NEB), have been forcing their way

onto Enbridge worksites even when the landowner has denied permission to enter. IAMC Indigenous Monitors claim they have the legal authority to accompany NEB inspection officers onto any property without landowner permission. CAEPLA disagrees.

CAEPLA, and its member associations, Manitoba Pipeline Landowners Association (MPLA) and Saskatchewan Association of Pipeline Landowners (SAPL), negotiated a comprehensive project agreement for the L3RP with Enbridge that authorizes Enbridge to enter on the private lands of MPLA and SAPL members.

That authorization extends to individuals who are authorized by Enbridge to be present to carry out Enbridge’s operations, and for whom Enbridge is responsible. That authorization does not extend to IAMC Indigenous Monitors. While NEB inspection officers do have the legal authority to

enter private properties to monitor Enbridge’s operations, those officers do not have the authority to bring other non-authorized individuals with them. CAEPLA has written to Enbridge on behalf of MPLA and SAPL members to direct Enbridge to not permit access to its worksites to anyone who lacks the authority to be there (see below).

Although this situation is still developing, it appears that certain Indigenous communities, whether through the IAMC or outside of it, are looking to use the NEB as the thin edge of the wedge to gain access to private properties for archaeological and other investigations.

The next step will be the designation of lands as heritage sites, and a prohibition on agricultural and other land use. Much is at stake, and CAEPLA will continue to monitor this situation closely.

Letter to Enbridge on behalf of CAEPLA re: IAMC February 15, 2019 Attention: Guy Krepps, Director of Projects Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Dear Sir: RE: Access to MPLA/SAPL Member Lands

Getty Images

As you know, the Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowner Associations (CAEPLA), the Manitoba Pipeline Landowners Association (MPLA), and the Saskatchewan Association of Pipeline Landowners (SAPL) successfully negotiated project agreements with Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (Enbridge) in respect of the Line 3 Replacement Program (L3R) project. These project agreements provide for rights of access by Enbridge to MPLAand SAPL-member properties and provide for the implementation of mitigation measures designed to protect the environment and the rights of landowners to continue to live and work on their properties throughout the life cycle of the project.

Under the terms of the project agreements, including property-specific right-of-way agreements with MPLA- and SAPL-member landowners, and pursuant to the regulatory authorizations obtained by Enbridge for the L3RP project, Enbridge is responsible for ensuring the security of its project worksites and for preventing unauthorized access to

CAEPL A .ORG

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

5

those worksites. Landowners have granted Enbridge rights of access to their lands for the purposes of constructing and operating the L3RP project, and MPLA and SAPL members understand and acknowledge that this right of access extends not only to Enbridge’s employees and contractors, but to other individuals who may be authorized by Enbridge to access the worksites in furtherance of Enbridge’s operations pursuant to the project agreements. These other individuals include Enbridge-authorized Aboriginal Monitors attending onsite in connection with Enbridge’s Aboriginal Construction Monitoring Plan.

Recently, we have been made aware of requests made to Enbridge for access to worksites located on privatelyheld lands by members of the Indigenous Advisory Monitoring Committee (IAMC), who would accompany inspection officers designated by the National Energy Board (NEB) pursuant to Section 49 of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act), for the purpose of carrying out inspections. We understand that Enbridge has taken the position that landowner consent must be obtained for access by IAMC Indigenous Monitors, and that Enbridge is not authorized to allow access where landowners do not consent. In spite of this, we also understand that IAMC Indigenous Monitors have gone ahead with inspections of privately-held lands even where landowner consent has not been obtained.

We are writing to you today on behalf of the MPLA- and SAPL-member landowners affected by the L3RP project to make clear that they are not prepared to permit access to worksites on their lands to individuals who are not authorized by Enbridge to be present for Enbridge’s operations. Consistent with the limited scope of the access rights granted by landowners to Enbridge in the project agreements, Enbridge must not permit access to MPLA- and SAPL-member lands to any individual other than: 1) individuals authorized by Enbridge and for whom Enbridge is responsible; 2) the landowner or the authorized agent(s) of the landowner; 3) individuals authorized by order of a court or tribunal to enter the lands (upon presentation of documentation evidencing such authorization); and/or, 4) individuals who have been designated by the NEB as inspection officers pursuant to Section 49 of the NEB Act (who must present a certificate of authorization prior to entry). Persons who do not possess the above-described authorizations and/or fail to produce documentation evidencing such authorizations, even if they are accompanying any of the above-noted authorized individuals, are not to be permitted access to the worksites located on MPLAand SAPL-member lands.

CAEPLA, MPLA, and SAPL also request that Enbridge notify landowners as soon as practicable of receipt by Enbridge of any request for access by an unauthorized individual, and notify landowners immediately of the presence on Enbridge’s worksites of any individual who is not authorized by Enbridge to be present.

We look forward to Enbridge’s strict adherence to these conditions for access to MPLA- and SAPL-member lands, and also to continuing to work with Enbridge toward the successful completion of the L3RP project.

Sincerely, David R. Core Director of Special Projects CAEPLA 

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.

6

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER CAEPL A .ORG

BY NADIA MOHARIB

Poverty or Pipelines?

Photo of Dale Swampy used with permission

The choice is pretty clear for this Indigenous entrepreneur and activist

P

artnerships between Indigenous peoples and the oil and gas industry could allow impoverished communities to pull themselves out of the welfare state that has crippled so many across this

country. And Dale Swampy, head of the National Coalition of Chiefs (NCC), speaks about this opportunity with passion and purpose.

The NCC’s plan for Indigenous communities to come together and develop critical partnerships is believed to be a way out and up from demons long dragging them down.

“Yes, we have problems, but with help we could become productive people,” Swampy says. “We need industry on our side.”

The NCC’s pro-development stance promotes bringing oil and gas projects into its communities. It believes that will translate into jobs and opportunities such as training, and, in

CAEPL A .ORG

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

7

Swampy’s words, will help “members thrive and defeat on-reserve poverty.”

The stance is also a collective push for communities to have stakes in oil and gas projects and, currently, a demand that the feds stop Bill C-48 and Bill C-69—legislation that will make it even more difficult for investors, including Indigenous communities, to get projects like pipelines built.

Finding a Solution Swampy, who is from Samson Cree Nation in Maskwacis, Alta. (formerly Hobbema), lost his father at a young age and as alcoholism gripped his mother (now a community elder), Swampy and his siblings were sent to relatives to be raised.

A father of eight, Swampy has 21 grandchildren and comes from a tightknit family, with an an estimated 600 Swampys in Canada. The Swampy family has suffered much tragedy stemming from living in social welfare states and he has been front row to the devastation facing many in Indigenous communities.

“I have uncles who have shot themselves, drank themselves to death and died so young,” he says.

He believes positioning Indigenous peoples as industry partners would help address “social despair,” including issues such as missing and murdered Indigenous women, hopelessness and violence.

“They can’t manage their welfare cheques or feed their children, and they have no jobs,” Swampy says. “It’s not a normal life—all the drug and alcohol abuse, the depression and

suicides. You have to go out and make a living ... good things can happen.”

The pain of those shared and ongoing atrocities has bonded members of the NCC who see part of the solution in building confidence among those disenfranchised through creating employment opportunities and, importantly, job retention. The goal is not just receiving royalties from oil and gas companies, but ownership of assets that deliver.

“The [NCC] coalition is not an arm of the industry—we are trying to build partnerships,” Swampy says.

“That’s the key.”

Power of Partnerships Swampy has seen the power of partnerships between on-reserve and outside groups. In the early ’90s, he was working with his band when a meat-packing plant in Red Deer was looking for labour to support its expansion. The band agreed to pay half the salary of its workers and provide them with transportation to the plant for six months.

“In the end, some 40 families moved to Red Deer and we still have 20 workers from Maskwacis there,” he says. “Programs like that really change peoples’ lives. That’s a real success story.”

Workplace training for band members is one thing, but job retention is another aspect that the NCC hopes to improve upon.

“Our greatest failure is companies don’t understand we are refugees in our own country,” Swampy says.

“When a young man goes into town,

“We are wanting to end Indigenous poverty and grow the economy.” –Dale Swampy

8

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER CAEPL A .ORG

he is going into a different country and can’t cope with the transition.”

But the option of not working isn’t an option at all. “[These young men] end up doing drugs or drinking to get some level of happiness they can’t get from work because they don’t have a job,” he says.

While Swampy left his community more than a decade ago “and never looked back,” it’s clear he has not forgotten those left behind, especially those living in poverty.

“We are not talking about being millionaires—we are talking about getting people out of poverty and social despair,” he says. “We are wanting to end Indigenous poverty and grow the economy.”

What's at Stake After graduating with an economics degree, Swampy worked on Samson for 22 years. His last job there was as band CEO. “I’m pretty familiar with what happens in our community,” he says.

While Samson Cree Nation is one of the country’s richest—with close to a billion dollars in assets and 28 corporations—it also deals with its fair share of social welfare issues.

In 2004, Swampy was offered work as an Indigenous relations consultant on pipeline projects for Enbridge. He worked on the Alberta Clipper and the Northern Gateway projects.

The accomplishments were unprecedented, specifically on the Northern Gateway. That project showed the power and influence Indigenous groups could have. Collectively, 31 bands increased their stake in the project from 10 per cent to 33 per cent equity ownership.

When the Justin Trudeau government cancelled the Northern Gateway project in 2016—choosing to back the

“Right now, we are in a battle for our own oil and gas industry. I think what CAEPLA is doing is extraordinary.” –Dale Swampy

now nationalized TransMountain expansion project instead—it was devastating. For Indigenous communities, it was a loss of 30 years of return on investments, about $2 billion in benefits and countless opportunities. It could have been a loss of hope, but instead the equity partners kept up regular conference calls and are contemplating a lawsuit against the feds for the cancellation. It was also impetus for the formation of the NCC. “We feel [Trudeau] chose the wrong project,” Swampy says.

Leveraging Advantages The NCC hosts a conference in Ottawa this May, and Swampy is excited about it given the success of one held last November that saw chiefs from Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, B.C. and the Yukon and industry officials discuss common ground. He makes it clear the chiefs, Métis leaders and industry partners do all share common ground. They are there for business and to publicly support oil and gas and mining and resource industries.

“We haven’t gone out and fought as aggressively as environmentalists, but we have to get the word out— there are a lot of First Nations people who work in the natural resources industry,” says Swampy.

While he agrees there is a climate problem and it is imperative there be a shift toward sustainable development, an “uncompromising protection of the environment” (in the words of the government) is not viable. The hope is to see Indigenous communities be progressive and create part-

nerships that leverage advantages, rather than sitting by and listening to “David Suzuki-type” rhetoric.

A Supportive Structure

didn’t have running water, used an outhouse, and the only floor space was in the kitchen, as the rest of the house was filled with bunkbeds for the children.

“I think about all their struggles,” he says. “They came through it and were happy. The supportive family structure was there.”

That supportive structure is missing for so many—including members of Swampy’s extended family—and the NCC believes in nurturing strong family support or “anchor families” back at home. But, Swampy is still pained by the problems facing many Canadian Indigenous communities.

“They are killing themselves every day and every year, young girls and young boys are hanging themselves.

There are drugs and alcohol and shooting deaths and domestic violence,” Swampy says.

“Positioning First Nations as industry partners would help address social despair, which has meant everything from missing and murdered women to addictions, violence and hopelessness,” he says.

“We are looking for partnerships with the industry to get band members employed.” 

While much of Swampy’s family history is coloured with tragedy, his children have transitioned into the workforce and he finds strength in those successes. He is also thankful for the family support he received growing up. He remembers when his grandfather raised horses and sold urine to the pharmaceutical industry and his grandmother supported the family working as a janitor at a residential school. His grandparents

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.

A New Alliance Partners with the NCC now include the Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowner Associations (CAEPLA.) “I respect what they are doing— they are a group of landowners who are directly affected by decisions government makes on the oil and gas industry,” Swampy says. “Right now, we are in a battle for our own oil and gas industry. I think what CAEPLA is doing is extraordinary.”

He hopes the organization increases NCC’s voice and envisions registering as witnesses on federal bills, even sharing a witness stand to speak up against the industry-paralyzing Bills C-48 and C-69.

“It would be good to be side-byside. It shows how on-reserve and off-reserve can be organized with the same views and fight the same battle,” he says.

CAEPL A .ORG

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

9

W I T H N O T E S F R O M E R I C A W I N Q U I S T P H D , A A LT O U N I V E R S I T Y

Finnish Research Finds Fungi Feed on Oil Mushrooms are a key ingredient in the fast growing field of bioremediation

Environment, biosecurity and bioremediation are top concerns for CAEPLA. That is why we believe mycoremediation (bioremediation involving the use of fungi) is something the energy transport industry and landowners should become educated on.

F

ungi can be harnessed to clean polluted soil that cannot be cleaned using traditional composting methods. This was the finding of Erika Winquist, PhD in biotechnology, in her doctoral dissertation for the Aalto University School of Chemical Technology in Helsinki, Finland.

Soil that has been polluted by organic pollutants such as oils can be treated by composting. However, it is not effective against many other organic pollutants such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons and dioxins. Soil polluted with organic pollutants other than oil accounts for as much as 45 per cent of excavated contaminated soil. The compounds are found in

10

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER CAEPL A .ORG

areas where sawing is carried out and in areas where there is distribution of fuels, waste treatment and various kinds of industry, explains Winquist.

In Finland during 2005 and 2006, almost three million tonnes of excavated, contaminated soil were transported into landfill sites and other treatment plants. Most of the soil ends up in landfills because at the moment, landfill sites accept it for the use of construction of field structures for new landfill sites.

A more sustainable practice would be to clean the polluted soil, rather than just take it to a landfill. Currently, putting it into a landfill is far too easy and cheap. In addition, there is limited use of other methods.

For example, burning the soil at a high temperature (over 1,000 degrees) in an incinerator destroys the

organic pollutants, but the process is expensive and there is insufficient incineration capacity to treat all the soil that requires burning. Fungi could be used to expand bioremediation for the destruction of the more enduring organic pollutants too, states Winquist.

Mycelia break down soilpolluting compounds The fungi are grown on pine bark, which contains compounds that prevent the growth of other microbes and makes it a good growing medium for fungi. The growth period lasts four to six weeks. The actual cleaning by using fungi takes place in a treatment plant where the mycelia (or vegetative part of the fungus) of white rot fungi grow in the polluted soil.

Getty Images

Soils examined were from old sawmill sites contaminated with polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH compounds) and dioxins. In laboratory scale tests, the best results showed 96 per cent of PAH compounds and 64 per cent of the dioxins were broken down in three months.

White rot fungi grow naturally on wood. As they grow in the soil, they break down the compounds with lignin-like structures that pollute it.

The soils examined were from old sawmill sites that were contaminated with polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH compounds) and dioxins. In laboratory scale tests, the best results showed 96 per cent of PAH compounds and 64

per cent of the dioxins were broken down in three months.

The research was carried out in cooperation with the University of Helsinki as well as with the Finnish Environment Institute. Funding was provided through the Symbio programme run by Tekes, the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation, as well as by the compa-

nies working with the programme.

Research into the environmental applications of fungi continues to be carried out at the University of Helsinki. Ekokem Oy, one of the companies involved in the research, has acquired the rights to the method of using fungi for cleansing. î Ź

CAEPL A .ORG

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

11

BY ELLIS ROSS

Real Reconciliation An Indigenous chief turned MLA explains how it works

I

n 2004, as an elected member of the Kitamaat Village Council, I couldn’t get anyone to describe Aboriginal rights and title to me, so I started to read rights and title case law. I did this mainly because I saw no solutions in fighting

12

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER CAEPL A .ORG

the Indian Act or even negotiating a treaty under the British Columbia Treaty Process.

I had goals of independence. I badly wanted our people out of poverty but everything I tried, failed.

It was at that point when I first came across the word “reconciliation.”

I grew up around animosity towards the “white man” and

government, so it was a surprise to see a judge talking about our need to reconcile “because let’s face it, none of us are going anywhere.” Even back then, as today, I thought this was a profound and powerful statement and objective.

After exploring political definitions of reconciliation that didn’t lead anywhere, I came to believe that true

Photo of Ellis Ross used with permission

reconciliation was to bring two groups back together for the common good.

With this belief, I started to discount what I didn’t see as true reconciliation. For example, I couldn’t see cash payment for a past wrong as reconciliation, but more as a form of restitution or compensation. Maybe it brought light to a past situation, but it didn’t bring Native and non-Native societies back together.

As I opened my eyes, I couldn’t help but notice that reconciliation was already around us on a daily basis.

The only problem being that it was one-sided.

Natives, on one hand, are almost fully integrated into today’s society in terms of living with the conveniences of the 21st century including newer forms of boats, houses and laws—all things that helped to increase our quality of life. On the other hand, we were still excluded from Canada’s economy.

While the rest of Canada enjoyed the wealth of her resources, Natives were intentionally held back under policies of the Indian Act and indeed the mentality of all levels of government whether it be municipal or provincial.

This all changed in 2004, with the Haida court case decision on the duty to consult, and where appropriate, accommodate First Nations. [Duty to consult] is when the Crown is aware of a decision that may infringe on asserted rights and title of a First Nations community.

This is where I saw technical reconciliation in action from the Crown as well as economic reconciliation from industry under the B.C. environmental assessment.

For a band like mine—Haisla Nation near Kitimat—who didn’t really want shared decision-making, but wanted our interests included before the decision was made, it was like a dream come true.

While the rest of Canada enjoyed the wealth of her resources, Natives were intentionally held back under policies of the Indian Act. It takes tremendous commitment, and involves hiring capacity if you don’t have it, but the return has the potential to help fix a problem that nobody else has been able to fix: the conditions of the Canadian Aboriginal stuck in a cycle of poverty and unemployment and all the associated social ills.

For our band, the idea of being included as a means to address our social ills moved from theory to reality when our people started working at meaningful jobs. Our band council began receiving non-Indian Act funds that they, in turn, used to help their membership (including off-reserve members). We were also able to build our own infrastructure.

This was our band’s goal on two counts: a share and a say and being able to address our own issues on our own terms.

If our efforts aren’t helping our band members get out of these horrible social conditions, the conversation around the term reconciliation is essentially useless.

The LNG pipeline opportunities— LNG Canada and KMLNG, both with terminals in Kitimat—included government and industry collaboration and did everything I heard my people demand for the past 20 years.

We want to be part of the decisionmaking on the land. Done.

The land should continue to help sustain us in today’s context. Done.

We should be included in today’s economy. Done.

We should be working on a path toward independence. Done.

We should be able to be in a place where we can address our own issues on our own terms. Done.

We want to stop begging for help in our own territory. Done.

And most importantly, in my eyes, we want our kids and grandkids to have meaningful employment so they can have enriching lives.

We’re off to a good start, and I’d say we’re halfway there.

This was all made possible by opening ourselves up to new ideas, taking risks and understanding that being the “angry aboriginal” doesn’t achieve anything for our people.

And all of this achievement was possible without signing a treaty or going to court to define our title.

I believe if the B.C. model for the LNG projects had been the approach followed for Northern Gateway, things might have been different.

Even the Feds had no idea how to consult. Unfortunately, by the time I got ahold of the file, it was too late. 

Ellis Ross was elected to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in the 2017 provincial election and represents the electoral district of Skeena as a member of the British Columbia Liberal Party caucus. Prior to his election to the Legislature, Ross was the chief councilor for the Haisla Nation. In 2006, he signed a $50 million agreement with Kitimat LNG to build a liquid natural gas plant on one of the Haisla Nation reserves.

Ross also did survey work for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, then went into business with his brother doing hand logging and salvage log beachcombing. He also ran a charter boat. Ross was awarded the Order of British Columbia in 2014.

CAEPL A .ORG

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

13

BY ANDREA DE ROO

Running the Numbers

New data tech enables landowners to reduce risk and calculate compensation

S

ophisticated technology and the collection of data is nothing new to the agriculture industry.

There has been a wealth of platforms launched over the last decade to help growers collect, process, and use data generated by their

14

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER CAEPL A .ORG

farm. This technology has enabled growers to track trends in finances, production, and even weather patterns to reduce risk on the farm with better decision-making.

The data has also been used for compensation on insurance claims and helped agronomists with spray

drift complaints. So why not use all this data to better understand the severity of disturbance and crop loss along pipelines for compensation?

Landowners and energy companies understand that crop productivity is greatly affected by disturbance from pipeline activity. But, determining the

number for fair compensation is difficult to negotiate when the value of the loss is unknown. Final offers are often based on assumptions that the land will return to full productivity within a certain timeline and that the crop loss is consistent year to year.

This has not been the case for many landowners who continue to experience yield loss after the compensation payments have ceased, nor is the value of crop loss equal from year-to-year as crops and markets change.

I’ve come up with three questions landowners should ask themselves before sitting down to negotiate:

1

Source: discoveroperationscenter.com/en

What’s causing the differences in yield?

Despite best efforts to keep soil layers separate, disturbance with pipeline activity changes the soil profile that is critical to crop growth.

The mixing of soils leads to loss of moisture, nutrients, and organic matter, while also bringing soluble salts to the surface. Geological data can measure the change in soil that influences yield loss. Electrical conductivity correlates strongly to soil texture differences and when paired with elevation or topography data, creates a strong picture of environmental change from pipeline disturbance.

Facing page: Getty Images; this page: image used with permission

2 Can differences be documented?

Imagery data adds a visual layer of crop health data over the season. A highly-detailed data image can be collected by drone but is often more expensive and requires good weather for flying. Alternatively, satellite imagery is sufficient, but can depend on cloud cover or time of day the image is taken. Both options provide a Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) that indicates how “green” your field is, or, what areas are more productive. NDVI imagery

shows in-season differences between the low and high productivity of zones in the field and monitors the changes over the season. These images provide a lot of information, but often require another level of production data or “ground truthing” to evaluate if differences in NDVI values correlate to yield loss.

3

What are your numbers?

Production data is the ultimate layer that puts a dollar value on yield loss. A yield map off a combine shows what parts of the field produced better than others. Yield maps generally show a legend that assigns a yield value to each zone, but additional tools are available to isolate and measure averages of a specific area. This allows field averages to be compared to a pipeline right-of-way. It is key that the combine is calibrated, especially if there is more than one combine in the field to get accurate data. The picture above is raw yield data of wheat in tonnes/hectare. Even before processing, we can see areas with considerably lower yields and the percentage each yield zone takes up in the field.

More tools in technology and data management should be better utilized to address landowners crop losses.

Collectively, this information creates a powerful data set that could be used to bring actual numbers to the table when negotiating compensation contracts. Additionally, the ability to track the changes in data year after year can ensure fair settlement is provided as productivity improves or if it stays stagnant.

Moving forward, more tools in technology and data management should be better utilized to address landowners’ crop losses. Data needs to be collected and it needs to be in good order to provide any insight for either party. Are you collecting yours and are you using it?

Andrea De Roo has a BSA in agronomy and a M.Sc. in plant science. Additionally, she is a P.Ag. with the Saskatchewan Institute of Agrologists. Andrea farms with her family near Fairlight, Saskatchewan, and now also works with South Country Equipment as a Crop Intelligence Agronomist.

CAEPL A .ORG

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

15

Changing land management as we know it Land agents have worked on behalf of oil, gas and mining companies for over 150 years. While they are an essential element for landowner relations, there is a problem with the underlying premise from a land owners' perspective.

A land agent works for the company that hired them - not the landowner.

As a result, how can they truly represent the interests of the landowner independently or objectively?

What if instead of maintaining a land management department within a company, a neutral third-

GROW LEARN LEAD

party land agent was hired equally by both the landowners and the company? This approach reduces the perceived one-sided bias and creates true shared ownership and control.

In partnership with CAEPLA, introducing Infocus Land Management's Independent Construction Monitoring - The right way to conduct landowner relations.

To get involved in the future of land management, or to learn more about this unique service, please contact CAEPLA or Infocus Land Management (www.infocusconsulting.ca).

www.infocusconsulting.ca

management consulting

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 16

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER CAEPL A .ORG

BY CHRIS BLOOMER

Pipeline Politics and What We Share Getty Images

We need to get Bill C-69 right—it is the key to Canada’s future

W

hen it comes to pipeline politics, Canada appears to be divided. But those for infrastructure projects and those against may actually have a lot more in common than it might initially appear.

We want a clear and predictable regulatory process that ensures our energy is delivered in the safest possible way to all the markets demanding our oil and natural gas—something that all Canadians stand to benefit from. We want to ensure that resource development and transmission are done in a manner that

CAEPL A .ORG

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

17

1

Amendments to de-risk from increased litigation and judicial review

protects the environment. We want to see the social and economic benefits that come from responsible resource development. These concerns aren’t just Alberta’s problems, these are Canada’s problems.

At the time of writing, Western Canadian Select is trading at an almost $17 differential to West Texas Intermediate. That is money being ripped from Canadians’ pockets. And while energy infrastructure projects already face numerous challenges to get approved and built, Bill C-69, in its current form, certainly isn’t the right solution.

Canada’s energy transmission pipeline companies are clear on what amendments they would like to see, and we ask the Government of Canada to take the time to get this right.

Ensuring Competitiveness in Regulatory Reform The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) is concerned about the economic future of all Canadians.

Now more than ever, our country needs regulatory clarity to support the much-needed well-paying jobs

18

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER CAEPL A .ORG

the energy industry creates, which contribute to economic benefits across the entire country. We need regulatory clarity so international investors can feel confident about investing their capital in Canada.

Bill C-69 poses a major risk to the economic competitiveness of Canadian businesses from coast to coast to coast.

While meant to streamline environmental assessments and regulatory approvals, Bill C-69, in its current form, adds unnecessarily cumbersome requirements and extended timelines to major Canadian infrastructure projects. So much so, that foreign investment in our energy industry, which is already moving to less-risky opportunities outside of Canada, is unlikely to return. But the Government of Canada has a chance to change negative perceptions and encourage international investment. Here are some options to consider:

As evidenced by the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision regarding the Trans Mountain certificate of approval, the risks of litigation are serious and increasing. The current version of Bill C-69 heightens this risk. Years of legal precedents will be erased, leading to new standards defined by the courts.

CEPA is making every effort to work with government to identify areas that could result in additional judicial challenges, and we are proposing amendments aimed at clarifying and removing potential risk. Key court challenges interpreting Bill C-69 would heighten investor uncertainty threatening the social and economic benefits that Canadians want to see from major infrastructure projects, like pipelines.

There must be amendments in the bill to address legal challenges that have delayed or stopped transmission pipelines after years of review, approval, and equipment and supplies have been moved into place to start construction.

Once a decision is made, that decision should be final and not subject to additional reviews aimed at delaying or killing a project.

2

Remove broader public policy from impact assessment and de-politicize the process CEPA has been asking for the de-politicization of the regulatory review process for more than two years, since the Government of Canada put the National Energy Board (NEB) modernization expert panel into place. We have argued that while broader public policy issues are important, regulatory review of individual projects is not the place to discuss them.

Bill C-69 poses a major risk to the economic competitiveness of Canadian businesses from coast to coast to coast.

Once a decision is made, that decision should be final and not subject to additional reviews aimed at delaying or killing a project.

We recommended a two-part review that moves political and broader policy issues to the beginning, before the project undergoes its technical and environmental assessment. As it is currently drafted, the bill does identify those policy issues that might stop a project, but they are not dealt with early in the project development and are instead addressed in a later assessment stage as well as the final decision at the very end of the review.

3

Timelines and public participation

Getty Images

In its current form, Bill C-69 has the potential for delays and extending already burdensome timelines. Time outs, extensions and increased scope of study areas will lead to timelines exceeding those currently under the NEB review process.

It is important that the regulatory process offers inclusive public participation opportunities but not at the cost of unreasonable and expensive delays. Optimizing public participation should be about balancing procedural fairness with the desire to enable concerned voices to be heard. That means requiring science and fact-based evidence, not anecdotal observations based on opinion or attempts to obstruct regulatory proceedings.

The “standing test” under current legislation has meant that the NEB and other Canadian regulators use a test to determine those who are directly affected by major resource projects and give them a place to speak their views. Bill C-69 eliminates the standing test, leading to a potential outcome whereby

anybody, regardless of whether she or he is directly impacted, or impacted at all, could participate equally in the review process.

There needs to be a process in place to ensure both flexible and scalable participation in the review process, at least in the case of intervenors. The idea isn’t to remove a participant’s ability to engage on a project review, rather to ensure that timelines don’t become unwieldly. This stage of the review process, in its current format, is already costly to pipeline proponents, and having it undefined and uncontrolled means even more unpredictability and risk for investors.

4

Canadian Energy Regulator CEPA strongly believes that all pipeline reviews should be led by the NEB as the best-placed regulator. The positive changes being made under the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) Act to strengthen governance and public trust outweigh any need for the Impact Assessment Agency being involved in pipeline project reviews. Replacing the NEB—a regulator and agency that credibly reviewed and approved the LNG Canada project (and other major projects)—would erase a rich history of decision-making precedents and proven processes to start from scratch.

The Path Forward We need to find common ground and come to an agreement so that we get Bill C-69 right. Getting Canadian-produced oil and natural gas to

new and existing markets is essential to navigating a path for the future of Canada. But we won’t access those markets if we can’t get more transmission pipelines built. That means we are at a loss when it comes to getting fair market prices for our resources, specifically in the order of tens of millions of dollars lost from Canada’s economy every day.

The lasting effects of the bill will be felt for generations across Canada. The well-paying jobs and economic benefits created by the energy industry have the potential to reshape the future of our country. Transporting Canadian resources to the people that need them means doing it the right way, with proper and timely regulatory processes in place.

We can do all this, but we need to get Bill C-69 right if we want Canadian oil and natural gas to be part of the energy future. A future that can be safer and smarter, if we work together.  Chris Bloomer is president and CEO of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association. With more than 30 years of experience in the domestic and international energy business, Chris leads the industry association that represents Canada’s transmission pipeline companies, which operate 134,000 kilometres of pipeline in Canada and the United States. Chris has a degree in Geoscience and is a member of The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA).

CEPA has been asking for the de-politicization of the regulatory review process for more than two years ... while broader public policy issues are important, regulatory review of individual projects is not the place to discuss them.

CAEPL A .ORG

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

19

B Y L E E F R I D AY

No Defense Against Expropriation

Why Canadian landowners are really just tenants

C

ity Council in London, Ontario, will likely expropriate Nan Finlayson’s property at 100 Stanley St. in order to replace a rail bridge and widen a road. Nan is retired, loves her property, and does not wish to move. Her predicament raises two important issues: first and foremost, the right to own property, and second, the supposed economic benefits of government road management.

20

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER CAEPL A .ORG

The Right to Own Property In Canada, all land is owned by the Crown and administered by the government. Private landowners are not owners at all, but mere tenants. Even in countries where private landownership appears customary, this is a mirage because governments still claim the right to expropriate land (i.e. eminent domain). Thus, individuals cannot consider themselves to be genuine owners of land.

Instead, land is effectively owned by abstract entities.

“Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life.”

–Frédéric Bastiat

Getty Images

These abstract entities, such as the Crown or government, own the land, ostensibly on behalf of the public, which consists of living, breathing entities—individual humans— who find it impossible to exercise their respective, theoretical, tiny fractional ownership of land. Clearly, the concept of public ownership is a convenient government construct which allows politicians and bureaucrats to make politically expedient decisions on behalf of special interest groups, such as developers and government contractors. The economic benefits granted to these groups (the 1 per cent) come at the expense of the general public (the 99 per cent), on whose behalf the government is supposedly administering the land.

This is a corrupt system.

As the economist and historian Murray Rothbard wrote in his book, Man, Economy, and State, “When the government confers a privilege of eminent domain … it has virtually granted a license for theft.”

Individuals must have the right to own property, including land, with absolute authority over its use, as long as they do not harm the property of others. This concept of ownership creates the greatest incentive for individuals to acquire and use property to increase their prosperity, which invariably increases the prosperity of others. Studies show that free markets produce high living standards, but free markets rest on property rights.

In William Gairdner’s book, The Trouble with Canada ... Still!: A Citizen

Speaks Out, he describes the economic benefits of property ownership: “Private family garden plots in the former Soviet Union, which totalled only 3 per cent of all cultivated land there, produced an astonishing 27 per cent of that country’s total farm output. This also explains why virtually all commune experiments eventually transform into property-based organizations, or fail outright.”

What is the point of having a right to own property – books, shoes, a home, or anything whatsoever that could be considered “ours” – if we cannot freely decide what to do with them?

This understanding is the reason so many Canadians were upset when this ancient and hallowed common law right to own private property was intentionally left out of Canada’s Charter [of Rights and Freedoms] in 1982 by Trudeau and all the first ministers. They left it out because the most socialist of them all, NDP leader Ed Broadbent, insisted they do so as his price for signing. He worried that a right to private property would hamper the government’s ability to expropriate private property. Precisely.

If Trudeau had not been so socialist himself, he would never have agreed.”

Legality versus Morality I would be imprisoned if I stole Finlayson’s property, but government land expropriation is considered legal. When the government does something that it claims to be legal, yet claims the same act to be illegal when initiated by an ordinary citizen, we find ourselves on a very slippery slope. In his essay “The Law,” Frédéric Bastiat warned us about this pernicious ideology:

Individuals must have the right to own property, including land, with absolute authority over how it will be used, as long as they do no harm to the property of others.

“Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life.

Collective right, then, has its principle, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, in individual right; and the common force cannot rationally have any other end, or any other mission, than that of the isolated forces for which it is substituted. Thus, as the force of an individual cannot lawfully touch the person, the liberty, or the property of another individual – for the same reason, the common force cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, the liberty, or the property of individuals or of classes.

When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law – two evils of equal magnitude, between which it would be difficult to choose.

Unhappily, law is by no means confined to its own sphere. … It has acted in direct opposition to its proper end … it has been employed in annihilating that justice which it ought to have established … it has placed the collective force in the service of those who wish to traffic, without risk and without scruple, in the persons, the liberty, and the property of others; it has converted plunder into a right, that it may protect it, and lawful defense into a crime, that it may punish it.”

For all their talk about the evils of inequality, politicians remain silent about inequality before the law. 

Following a 23-year career in the Canadian financial industry, Lee Friday has spent many years studying economics, politics, and social issues.

He operates a news site at londonnews1.com.

CAEPL A .ORG

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

21

BY C. KENNETH REEDER

Q&A 22

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER CAEPL A .ORG

How to Help Pro-Pipeline Indigenous Communities

Photo of Jeff Deist used with permission

T

Is there a better way to answer the question of “stolen land” than giving it back?

he Ludwig von Mises Institute is is the world’s most popular free market think tank. It promotes the Austrian School of economics and is located in Auburn, Alabama.

The president of the institute, Jeff Deist, was formerly Congressman Ron Paul’s chief of staff and is a mergers and acquisitions tax attorney.

Writing on the website mises.org, Deist recently added a novel perspective to the endless debate about fair treatment of Indigenous people in North America.

Deist proposed addressing the issue of stolen land by abandoning the reservation system and, instead, ceding vast tracts of federal land to Indigenous bands. Therefore, giving them complete sovereignty and creating “nations within a nation.” Bands could keep, use, sell, or develop the land as they wished.

This would mean no state or provincial or federal taxes or regulations.

Government agencies would have no jurisdiction there. Armies of bureaucrats would no longer administer

resource rights and land use. The bands would have full ownership and control within their own territory.

We asked Deist to elaborate on these ideas in relation to our own country’s divided interests, especially about oil and pipelines.

PIPELINE OBSERVER: Ludwig von Mises said democracy means “self-determination, self-government, self-rule.” Do you think Indigenous North Americans have democracy in this sense?

JEFF DEIST: Mises elevated self-determination to an ordering principle of liberalism. In other words, without a healthy degree of selfdetermination, no society can be truly liberal in the right sense of the word. [Indigenous people] in the U.S. and Canada certainly do not enjoy a healthy degree of self-determination, despite all of the political rhetoric. With their relatively small numbers, [Indigenous

people] are not a political force either as a voting bloc or lobby, at least at the federal level—so what good is democracy to a tiny minority? Tribal sovereignty—real sovereignty in the Misesean sense, the right to organize politically outside the jurisdiction of any federal, state, or provincial government—should be acknowledged sooner rather than later.

Otherwise all the talk about North America as stolen land is empty.

PO: When it comes to Indigenous North Americans, many people understand that there are problems with the status quo. Naturally, conservatives and the left tend to see the issue differently. For example, many conservatives support abolishing the reserve system and have Indigenous people be more like “regular” citizens. The left often see themselves as the real advocates for Indigenous people, saying they need more fiscal support from the state in order to have more autonomy. Your idea is quite different. Why are your suggestions better?

“What good is democracy to a tiny minority? Tribal sovereignty—real sovereignty in the Misesean sense, the right to organize politically outside the jurisdiction of any federal, state, or provincial government—should be acknowledged sooner rather than later.” –Jeff Deist

CAEPL A .ORG

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

23

In Canada, probably a majority of Indigenous communities support natural resource development and want to participate in major energy infrastructure projects like pipelines.

JD: Should [Indigenous people] trust the governments of Canada and the U.S.? It’s absurd on its face. Tribes should be free to form nations within nations, and those nations can be as connected or disconnected from the rest of North America as those tribes see fit. Certainly, there should be trade, travel, diplomacy, and communication between these tribal nations and the rest of the world, including North America. Certainly, tribal members should have a say in determining the degree of connection and should be granted U.S. and Canadian citizenship to live outside tribal lands as “regular” Americans or Canadians if they choose. And, of course, the tribes themselves should issue passports and control their own borders. It’s bizarre to give so much lip service to tribal history, traditions, and practices while simultaneously pushing either assimilation or dependency.

PO: In Canada, a lot of land could be given over to Indigenous people for homesteading and development. Right now, almost 90 per cent of the country is “Crown land”—that is, owned by either federal or provincial governments. Indigenous reserves here are federal Crown land. Surface and subsurface rights to mineral, energy, forest and water resources are largely administered by the government rather than through Indigenous self-governance.

Meanwhile, many reserves are very small and remote, making them isolated and weak economically, but the government creates strong incentives for people to stay there. What is the connection between government ownership and impoverishment?

JD: Land was the original form of wealth in North America. The U.S. and Canadian

governments own vast tracts of land, some of which could be ceded to tribes without conditions or encumbrances, free and clear.

In other words, tribes should truly own tribal lands (even while we acknowledge it may not be easy to trace just boundaries and deserving descendants). They should be able to use that land, including airspace, waterways, forests, subsurface rights, mining rights, and drilling rights as they see fit. They should be able to parcel, subdivide, sell, or borrow against any portion as well. Some tribes might choose to sell land immediately and create funds for education, housing, medical care, and the like.

Some might choose to leave important lands completely untouched, never open to outsiders.

Ownership means ownership, not simply beneficial use under the watch of federal regulators and overlords.

PO: In Canada, probably a majority of Indigenous communities support natural resource development and want to participate in major energy infrastructure projects like pipelines.

These efforts can be restricted by federal law (for example, banning oil tankers in certain areas). But also, many Indigenous groups oppose this kind of industry. The opposition of a small minority can stop a project for everyone else because of how the government makes decisions for such things. How does your proposal address this type of conflict?

JD: Conflicts over land, and land use, are always local. Ottawa and Washington, D.C., are distinctly ill-suited to making decisions over such faraway conflicts. Again, sovereignty means the local tribal members decide whether to engage in industry and resource exploitation or focus on preservation and green projects.

“Do Indigenous people think total sovereignty is too extreme? Is the current situation working, where many reserves are de facto welfare state wards?”–Jeff Deist

24

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER CAEPL A .ORG

After all, it’s their property. As for pipelines and infrastructure that may cross into and out of tribal land, the approach is no different than any cross-border project. The various nations and industries involved negotiate, but no tribe should be forced to participate.

PO: Some will say your suggestions are too extreme. What would you say to people who would claim that creating “nations within a nation” would only increase division and create new problems? They might even suggest that increasing sovereignty would only aggravate the issues often associated with reserves—the parallel society approach hasn’t worked out.

JD: Do Indigenous people think total sovereignty is too extreme? Is the current situation working, where many reservations are de facto welfare state wards? Is there a better answer to the question of “stolen land” than giving it back? I suspect many tribes would benefit financially and create a better standard of living for tribal members without too much upheaval. Many might wish to remain closely engaged with the U.S. or Canadian government and accept continued regulation and transfer payments (i.e. welfare becomes foreign aid).

Others might become radically independent and create true nations within a nation. But either way, if we believe in self-determination—if we really believe in a liberal ordering of society—we should stop trying to “fix” [Indigenous] problems and simply grant tribes sovereignty and land. 

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.

Share your message with Energy Corridor Canadians.

WADE WATSON, DAC, CPPA, IFAS, Certified Appraisal Reviewer CHRIS HALL, B.MGT., AACI, P.App.

• • • •

For advertising inquiries contact us at advertising@caepla.org

Court of Queen's Bench Qualified Experts In Land, Equipment and Livestock Valuation NEB Arbitration Experience Experienced Fire Loss Analyst Experience Representing Landowner In Surface Rights Hearings

HEAD OFFICE 614 – 17 Street S.W. Medicine Hat, AB T1A 4X7 PHONE (403) 527-2737 FAX (403) 529-2293

BRANCHES LETHBRIDGE, AB BROOKS, AB

EMAIL: admin@arcappraisals.ca WEBSITE: www.arcappraisals.ca CAEPL A .ORG

TOLL FREE 1-800-769-3145 PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

25

BY PETER HOLLE

Kevin Avram, Unsung Hero

How a small-town Prairie boy had an enormous impact on the grassroots, free market movement in Western Canada

26

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER CAEPL A .ORG

I first met this small-town guy from Rouleau, Saskatchewan, in the late 1980s. As a young policy analyst in the Devine government, I was involved in the history-shaking privatizations of crown corporations and government services. Predictably, these controversial policies upset the comfy status quo of all the interest groups that benefitted from what is now widely seen as third-world style government ownership of the economy. Hello, government unions and their handmaidens, left-leaning academics and politicians.

Out of nowhere, our clipping service began picking up highly articulate letters to the editors that

pointed out how these Crowns were a burden to taxpayers and fixtures of the past. I tracked the letters down to Kevin Avram, who soon sat down with me and announced he was starting the Saskatchewan Association of Taxpayers. It was modelled after some of the citizen taxpayer groups he had been observing in the U.S. He signed me up as the first member, and the rest is history.

Avram had learned how to sell memberships for an organization of free enterprise farmers using commissioned sales agents. He brought the formula to what eventually exploded into several provincial taxpayers’ organizations, which eventually

Out of nowhere, our clipping service began picking up highly articulate letters to the editors that pointed out how these Crowns were a burden to taxpayers and fixtures of the past. I tracked the letters down to Kevin Avram, who soon sat down with me and announced he was starting the Saskatchewan Association of Taxpayers.

Photo of Kevin Avram used with permission

C

anada has many unspoken public policy heroes.

These quiet change agents are responsible for persuading government to make the course corrections that have kept Canada on track as a relatively sophisticated modern market economy. Often under the radar, they are oblivious to the self-indulgent prattling of the chattering classes in the media, academia and government.

One such invisible hero is Kevin Avram, whose trail of life activities have made Canada, and particularly western Canada, a much better place.

Avram was instrumental in creating important organizations that promoted the interests of the average citizen and the taxpayer, and also helped defend the property rights of entrepreneurial farmers and landowners against major corporate players and governments.

CAEPL A .ORG

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

27

Avram's work as an effective grassroots thought entrepreneur was recognized by the pro-freedom organization the Atlas Network, which has assisted the start-up of free market think tanks around the world. merged into the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

That organization was the catalyst for a major wave of citizen and taxpayer anger. Waves of taxpayer association rallies, in combination with the rise of the Reform Party, set the Ottawa spending establishment on its head and culminated with the unprecedented federal spending cuts under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his Finance Minister Paul Martin. Today, these cuts are widely heralded as critically important reforms that set the stage for the booming Canadian economy in the early 2000s. In Manitoba, the organization there managed to get its model balanced-budget legislation passed.

Avram lost control of the organization in a dispute with his hand-picked board of directors. However, he went on as a serial start-up entrepreneur and formed several other organizations that continued the bottom up, grassroots ethic of local citizen control, as well as fighting against big government control of the economy.

His work at the Prairie Centre targeted the end of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, explaining how the Prairie economy was being shafted by a temporary war measure of a monopoly government marketing agency gone rogue. It was only under Stephen Harper that the board was disbanded—again to great positive effect on the Western Canadian farm economy.

As the editor of CAEPLA’s publications from 2009 to 2011, Avram defended the property rights of farm producers in relation to energy and pipeline companies.

28

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER CAEPL A .ORG

His most recent venture was Grassroots Alberta, which has set its guns on the church of climate change, particularly its convoluted, salvationist taxes on carbon dioxide and its messianic, wildly out-of-control, and misguided policies to shut down the conventional energy sector. The loss of over 120,000 jobs in Alberta’s energy sector is directly attributed to these anti-energy policies, which can be traced directly to a climate changeobsessed federal government’s policy of deliberately stifling new pipelines to aid the “phase-out” of the Alberta oil sands. The lack of pipeline capacity has created enormous collateral damage to conventional oil production as well.

The last contact I had with Avram was late last year. He had complimented a Facebook photo of me wearing a white baseball cap with a “Mont Pelerin Society” logo on it. So, I managed to snag an extra hat and mailed it to him in Lethbridge where he now lives.

The Society is a high-powered group of thinkers and thoughtleaders who believe strongly in individual liberty and free markets. It was founded after a meeting of prominent economists in the small town of

Mont Pelerin, Switzerland, in 1947.

It was organized by the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek to create an “ideas” organization to push back on the growth of the overweening state and its predilection for central planning and government expansion. Hayek’s writings and life work battling big government earned him the Nobel Prize for economics in 1974. One of the thrills of Avram’s life was attending a Mont Pelerin Society meeting in its original Swiss birthplace in 1997.

Avram’s work as an effective, grassroots thought entrepreneur was recognized by another pro-freedom organization, the Atlas Network, which has assisted the start-up of free market think tanks around the world.

In December, Avram was diagnosed with brain cancer. It is serious, and his friends and family are unsure how successful surgery and further treatment will be. Avram is a mostly unspoken hero and a major figure in Canada’s tiny freedom movement who made an enormous difference in making Canada a better place to be. 

Peter Holle is the founding president of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, an award-winning Western Canadian-based public policy think tank. Of the nearly 100 recognized think tanks in Canada, Frontier is one of only five to make the 2008 global “Go-To Think Tanks” list published by the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program of the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia. His columns have appeared in dozens of newspapers, including the National Post and The Wall Street Journal. He has a master’s of business administration from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He is a member of the Mont Pelerin Society, an international organization of classical liberals.

B Y C A E P L A S TA F F

A Window into Pipeline Operation

Photo courtesy of Enbridge

Enbridge’s simplified pipeline model takes engagement to the next level

W

hen it comes to understanding stakeholder interest in pipelines, collaboration is critical. In Enbridge’s view, the best way to understand stakeholder opinions, concerns or questions about

a project or pipeline operation is to involve them in a genuine and meaningful way.

“We’re supportive of a two-way dialogue, strongly seeking feedback from stakeholders, especially landowners, to determine the mutual benefit,” says Joanne Bradbury, community engagement strategist with Enbridge.

“It’s not throwing information out at

people, it’s about connecting and getting to the heart of what matters most to them.”

That’s where Peter Hansen, who is also a community engagement strategist with Enbridge, comes in. A certified journeyman mechanic with a wealth of experience in marine mechanics, a master’s of adult education degree and 25 years at Enbridge,

CAEPL A .ORG

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

29

“When we unveiled it in 2015, people said Enbridge was the first company to help them understand how a liquid pipeline system actually works.” –Peter Hansen Hansen designed and built a working model of a pipeline system that gives stakeholders, such as landowners and municipal leaders, a window into pipeline operations.

“I started tracking down equipment and fabricating things together in my laundry room,” says Hansen.

“There was a lot of trial and error, but

30

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER CAEPL A .ORG

I managed to get enough pieces put together to build the first model. When we unveiled it in 2015, people said Enbridge was the first company to help them understand how a liquid pipeline system actually works.”

“We make assumptions that everyone knows what the system is and how it works, and they don’t,”

says Bradbury. “We’ve used the model many times, including at the Enbridge-CAEPLA workshops, and it’s always a hit (learn more on page 41). It’s an advanced form of engagement—adding an interactive element that’s so much more meaningful.”

Discussion and interaction around the pipeline learning tool provides Enbridge a way to learn more about its stakeholders as well. The experience creates an environment where people are comfortable enough to ask questions. It also opens the door for them to learn about pipeline safety and integrity and what it takes to safely transport petroleum products every day.

“We need people to ask these questions so we can understand their concerns,” Bradbury explains. “That’s the whole point of engagement, understanding what’s important to the stakeholder.”

The working pipeline model has grown from that first laundry room prototype to include two terminals, a pump station, pipelines, flow meters and pig (Pipeline Inspection Gauge) traps—it’s been so successful in engaging stakeholders the past few years that Hansen has now assembled several more for use in other Enbridge regions in Canada and the U.S. “Pipelines are a very public conversation today,” says Bradbury. “So any opportunity for us to advance understanding and balance that discussion is important, no matter the audience.

Not just for Enbridge, but for anyone who relies on energy to fuel their quality of life.” 

This page: photo courtesy of Enbridge; facing page photo of Steve and Vicki Hethrington used with permission; historical photos Alamy Stock Images

Enbridge's Peter Hansen demonstrates how a pipeline works.

BY MARTY GOLD

Small-Town Land Swindle

How a local legacy project and multiple levels of government conspired to strip one Manitoba couple of their land

G

ive a group of government “good old boys” a look at a couple of acres and they’ll take it all.

That was certainly the case for Steve and Vicki Hethrington, who live in Carman, Manitoba.

The couple’s Pembina Valley property, previously owned by Steve’s mother, is the keystone to their retirement plan. But despite their hard work, the

land has been unfairly forced from their hands to accommodate the Boyne Lodge personal care home expansion non-profit project.

The project has created controversy in the small town, after details emerged that cast doubt on the claim that the Hethringtons’ property had to, just had to, be expropriated.

CAEPL A .ORG

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

31

Steve and Vicki Hethrington on their property near Carman, Man.

At a fall 2018 hearing regarding the Boyne Lodge proposal, the Hethringtons state the hearing officer told them the project only required 3 1/3 acres of their land, and not actually all 7 acres proponents claimed.

Now, townsfolk who contributed to the $3.7 million pot wonder if they were also misled. We spoke with one donor who reflected that concern and asked to remain anonymous to avoid small-town retribution.

“Steve and Vicki are asking for answers, and no one wants to give it to them,” says the source.

“People didn’t realize what the true purpose was—banking land,” explains Steve. “We were told [by] two of them in 2013 [who] sat at our table, ‘We will leave you with 4 acres.’ It’s snowballed from there.”

Vicki says that, previously, they had a cooperative relationship with the town. Past projects included a

When small-town “legacy builds” near a golf course are involved, questions about process and decision-making are inconvenient.

32

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER CAEPL A .ORG

bridge built at the rear of their land, drainage for nearby condos and clearing a tree for the walking path. So, it seemed natural to agree to a survey of the 4 acres to explore the original Boyne Lodge proposal—which included plans for the non-profit to build a new 80-bed lodge, converting the existing facility to 30 waiting beds, as well as offices for the regional health authority (RHA) consolidated onsite.

“There’s all these people standing on our back deck. They surveyed the whole land, not just the 4 acres. I asked [then-mayor] Bob Mitchell and he acted surprised, ‘I don’t know what they’re doing, and I’ll find out.’ That’s the last we saw of him,” Vicki says.

The couple describes agreeing to a request to negotiations about the 4 acres, only to be confronted at their kitchen table by project backers and told all 7 acres were going to be taken, no discussion.

The actual plan was based on fundraising a tremendous amount of private money for a campus model, to pressure the provincial government to let the project jump the queue for health-care facility funding.

That tactic worked for the Manitoba town of Niverville in 2013. A news story at the time reported that Gordon Daman, volunteer president of Heritage Life Personal Care Home and vice-president of Niverville Heritage Holdings Inc., the non-profit board behind the facility’s construction, said, “[This project has] caught the attention of others—including officials from Carman and two other towns. Future builds will likely very strongly consider the model that’s been developed here.”

Damon, partner and president of Red River Group-Real Property

“There aren’t any property rights, that’s the problem. Expropriation is becoming a way of doing business for government.”–Jurgen Kohler Solutions, is also deeply involved in the Carman project.

The campus plan also included an assisted-living and little-discussed life-lease building. Those two additional aspects, not eligible for the RHA funding umbrella, will require private money.

Since the town of Carman is partners with four other municipalities in the project with the Boyne Lodge non-profit, expropriation for all four components was “for the community good,” according to a town official.

Tyler King, economic development officer for the town of Carman, says, “This is a community-driven project in collaboration with the Sante Sud Regional Health Authority and the Province. The layout of the components needed more space than were preliminarily looked at.”

The last piece of land that could be developed near the golf course was their objective, representing a legacy project for well-established movers and shakers within an aging farming community sprouting newfound wealth in the last decade.

There were two parcels of land next to the local hospital, with an independent living facility already there, but no one could explain exactly why that option was not suited for building the other two non RHAfunded components.

When small-town “legacy builds” near a golf course are involved, questions about process and decisionmaking are inconvenient. It was certainly inconvenient when former mayor Mitchell was pressed for answers.

“Alternative sites were looked at, but from an economic perspective weren’t viable,” he says, offering no further explanation.

"Callous" MLA Betrays Constituents on Property Rights–Again

By Marty Gold Vicki Hethrington says that early on, she called her local member of the Legislature for Carman, Blaine Pedersen, seeking his assistance in resolving the issue. She says his answer was “so callous.” She couldn’t help but think he was in cahoots with the town officials.

“He said, 'I’m sorry I can’t help you. And you know, Vicki, [at least] you still own the keys to the car.’”

Jurgen Kohler of the BiPole III Landowners Committee represented those targeted by the expropriation-minded Manitoba Hydro utility for its latest billion-dollar boondoggle. He sees a disturbing pattern with property rights under the Brian Pallister Progressive Conservative government and with Pedersen, now in his second cabinet post.

“My view is that there aren’t any property rights, that’s the problem. Expropriation is becoming a way of doing business for government—instead of negotiating, they use expropriation and there’s no fairness going on. The Hethrington case? It’s right smack in the centre of his riding. It would be interesting to find out why [Pedersen] won’t help them,” Kohler says.

“Blaine used to oppose expropriation. He’s the one that formed our association in the summer of 2013. He told us to fight it, but when he became infrastructure minister … in power he distanced himself from us and disappeared. We were convenient when he was in opposition for visibility and then he threw us under the bus.”

In August—before the expropriation hearing was held—[Pipeline Observer] called Pederson for comment, but it was during a by-election. He refused to comment, citing an Elections Manitoba “gag order.” Pedersen, now minister of growth, enterprise and trade, was called once again for comment as this story was written, but no response was heard from his office by press time.

He repeatedly describes the 7 acres as undesirable “bushland” and insists he couldn’t understand why the owners refused to make a deal to sell, despite the fact the Hethringtons own the only property available on the Boyne River.

Most strange was his description of the status of the process as of February 13, 2019, as “murky.”

Why a public official would help initiate an expropriation that could ever be described as “murky” is hard to comprehend.

Less murky is the fact that the land can be forced from the owners and into the non-profit’s hands via the town—a partner in the project—for far cheaper than buying land at fairly negotiated prices. Land in hand is being counted on to force the province’s hand to open the cashbox, since about $40 million total is needed. 

Marty Gold is a Winnipeg writer and broadcaster. His work appears regularly in the Manitoba Post.

CAEPL A .ORG

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

33

BY BRIAN GIESBRECHT

Carry the Kettle Latest sacred Indigenous land claim could kill private property in Canada once and for all

34

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER CAEPL A .ORG

Alamy Stock Images

A

Claims of sacred burial sites and traditional hunting territories have stalled or stopped oil and gas, mining, lumber and other resource projects dead in their tracks.

ccording to KahnTineta Horn, Indigenous advocate and Mohawk elder, "Canada doesn’t have any land, because it is all ours.”

Since 1982, and the repatriation of Canada’s constitution and the bill of rights, Indigenous advocates have made steady progress in convincing Canadian courts and politicians that Indigenous peoples must be consulted and accommodated whenever a development affecting Crown land anywhere near a reserve is under consideration. The Supreme Court of Canada literally invented the “duty to consult and accommodate” Indigenous groups out of thin air in the Haida Nation case. Since then, the “duty” has been expanded, bit by bit.

Claims of sacred burial sites, traditional hunting territories and the like have stalled or stopped oil and gas, mining, lumber and other resource projects dead in their tracks.

In practice, a claim means lengthy negotiations until the Indigenous community’s price has been extracted. When Indigenous communities refuse consent, developments die.

The claims of sacred burial sites and traditional hunting lands can often be vague. The Indigenous peoples of the north and western parts of Canada were semi-nomadic hunters and gatherers. They hunted wherever there was game. As they followed their food supply, burial sites could be almost anywhere. In current settled agricultural societies, cemeteries are known to be in specific locations, and

archaeological diggings to confirm are simple matters to undertake. But this is not so with Indigenous tribes.

Virtually anyplace could be a burial site. Accordingly, Indigenous peoples could claim burial locations at will, without fear of being contradicted.

Attaching the word “sacred” to claims provides at least the appearance of authenticity. Government and corporate entities, wishing to develop resources at specific sites, can be at the mercy of Indigenous groups who can make claims of interest at the same site. The same considerations apply to traditional hunting lands. What can be called “traditional hunting lands” cover virtually the entire country.

When Chief Matthew Coone Come, politican and Indigenous activist, was asked how much of Canada’s landmass land “belonged” to the Indigenous peoples, he replied, “All of it.”

Indigenous advocates’ claims are very extensive, and their recent muscular claims are proof of Indigenous ambition in this regard. They want a veto on all resource development.

Although the Supreme Court has ruled that Indigenous groups do not have a veto on resource development projects, that is not how it has worked out in practice. Demands by Indigenous groups to be “consulted and accommodated” have functioned as a veto. Vitally important development projects have been held hostage by Indigenous advocates and their wellpaid lawyers. Indigenous legal bills have been paid by the federal government, meaning Indigenous advocates have nothing to lose by litigating whenever and wherever any possible claim shows itself. For some Indig-

enous communities, this practice— called tollgating—has become a major new industry.

Up until now, claims of sacred burial sites and the like have been confined to claims on Crown land.

Not anymore. The Carry the Kettle Nakota First Nation in Saskatchewan has served notice that it will claim the right to be consulted for any “sacred burial sites,” including sites existing on private land as well.

Indigenous advocates became so bold with their “duty to consult” demands, it was only a matter of time before their claims would extend to private land. If the “share the land” campaign of Indigenous advocates was accepted, there would be no reason why private property wouldn’t be “shared” as well—just as Crown land is to be “shared.”

However, some Indigenous advocates are cautious about making claims to private property for fear that landowners will become alarmed and react with pressure on legislators and governments. The fact that Carry the Kettle strategists decided to pursue rights over private property shows just how bold Indigenous advocates have become. They hope that compliant courts and politicians will accept even the most extreme version of Indigenous property rights.

That includes the claim that every Indigenous person who can prove that their ancestors lived in a certain geographical area is entitled to be a part owner of all of the lands within that geographical area, whether that land is publicly or privately owned.

The recently decided Restoule law case, in which 21 Indigenous groups

CAEPL A .ORG

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

35

Although the Supreme Court has ruled that Indigenous communities do not have a veto on resource development projects, that is not the way it has worked out in practice. in Northern Ontario won a court case to increase their yearly annuities, is an example of how successful Indigenous advocates have been in this regard. Unless the decision is reversed on appeal (the Province of Ontario is appealing the decision, the federal government has surrendered), “share the land” claims will apply to all publicly and privately-owned land in Canada.

If anyone in 1982 had forecast that this extreme view about “all lands” would become a reality, they likely would have been considered mad.

But now, in 2019, the combination of determined Indigenous advocates, an activist Supreme Court, and compliant politicians has resulted in a rising probability that “share the land” will become the law. If so, the prospect of all resource development going forward will only be allowed to proceed if Indigenous communities allow it.

Because the success of the “share the land” movement would so profoundly change Canada, it is necessary to back up and ask exactly what the “share the land” idea is all about. “Share the land” is the idea that signed treaties are not what they seem—the very clear land surrender documents that the parties who signed the treaties thought.

The new and increasingly common assertion is that treaties require all Canadians to “share the land.” For Indigenous advocates, the term means that there is no longer any

absolute ownership of land in this country. All Crown and privately -owned land would be subject to claims from Indigenous groups on the theory that Indigenous peoples “were here first.” By this logic, most nonIndigenous Canadians, now thinking they are the lawful owners of fee simple land, would have to pay some form of rent to Indigenous groups forever.

The terms would have to be agreed to by Indigenous groups, who can resort to the courts. The combination of the “duty to consult” and acceptance of the “share the land” concept would mean that status Indigenous people who live on reserves—less than 2 per cent of the Canadian public— would have a virtual stranglehold on resource development in Canada.

Indigenous groups could eventually extend their claims to all publicly and privately-owned land—as Coone Come and Kahn-Tineta Horn have said, “All of it.”

The demand by the Carry the Kettle First Nation for sacred rights on private property will be followed up by claims from other Indigenous groups pursuing so-called sacred rights. The current federal government has been amazingly compliant concerning claims of this kind.

In fact, under the leadership of former Justice Minister Jody WilsonRaybould, practice directions were issued to Department of Justice lawyers that almost concede a case to Indigenous claimants before the trial even begins. Justice lawyers go into

Most non-Indigenous Canadians, now thinking they are the lawful owners of fee simple land, would have to pay some form of rent to Indigenous groups forever.

36

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER CAEPL A .ORG

court with one arm tied behind their backs. Their role is to pursue “reconciliation” rather than fight on behalf of Canadian taxpayers.

Consequently, if the current federal government allows claims to private property, the type of claim that Carry the Kettle First Nation is now making with respect to private property may succeed.

Most Canadians don’t have a clear understanding of how profoundly Indigenous claims have advanced and expanded since 1982. An activist Supreme Court and compliant politicians have severely compromised resource development in Canada.

Crown land is now effectively “shared” with Indigenous communities. Now, private land is at risk as well. If Kahn-Tineta Horn prevails, what has been private land would be considered “shared lands,” and private no longer. 

Brian Giesbrecht is Senior Research Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP.org). He received his education at United College and the University of Manitoba, where he obtained his LLB in 1972. He worked with Walsh, Micay and Co., and was later appointed to the Provincial Court (Family Division) in 1976, where he heard child welfare cases and general family matters until he transferred to the Criminal Division in 1989. He was an Associate Chief Judge from 1991 to 2005, and he became Acting Chief Judge in 1993. Following his retirement from the bench in 2007, Mr. Giesbrecht has written extensively for various publications on the need to abolish the Indian Act and the separate systems of government that exist in Canada.

B Y D AV E C O R E

No More Divide and Conquer

F

Getty Images

A new alliance of landowners and pro-energy Indigenous leaders

ossil fuels are being vilified, and it has become almost impossible to get major pipelines and other energy and natural resource projects built.

And we must all ask ourselves: Why? Oil and gas development and use has proven to be an economic, environmental and human rights revolution. It has lifted people around the world out of poverty and provided those of us in cold northern regions an opportunity

to stay warm and eat fresh produce year-round from around the world.

How have people come to demonize the very thing that has literally “saved their bacon?”

We have created generations of people who are totally out of touch with survival. It seems obvious the prosperity created by fossil fuels has spoiled Western society and left many disconnected from any concept of what it takes to survive without abundant cheap energy.

We now have modern cities that have fossil fuels to thank for their survival, technological advancement and green status. These cities are

concentrations of glass and concrete— with every cubic metre of concrete requiring 2,775 megajoules of energy to create. These same “modern” cities now sue energy companies for the alleged damages of climate change.

A Growing Chorus Indigenous protesters used by eco-radical NGOs as props to claim they are protecting “Mother Earth” are blocking new gas pipelines and even preventing the replacement of old unsafe pipelines. The same pipelines that were approved by other, directly affected Indigenous bands and

CAEPL A .ORG

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

37

The National Coalition of Chiefs (NCC) is a prime example of Indigenous people pursuing real change. their elected officials as an attempt to lift themselves out of impoverishment. Band members and young people are literally dying as they await economic development that can help provide jobs, family income, a sense of pride and something to live for.

As Alberta Regional Chief Jason Goodstriker says, “The land will give us benefit. [But]everybody saying ‘Mother Earth,’ that’s part of the hippy movement.” Goodstriker and a growing chorus of other Indigenous leaders say, lifting their people out of poverty and addressing serious issues like water quality will only be possible through economic development.

I suggest we all should listen to Ellis Ross, B.C. MLA for Skeena, and a member of Haisla First Nation (page 12). He says the only way to address Indigenous poverty issues is through economic development: “Give my people a job and a sense of worth.

I am tired of First Nations being used by environmental groups to further anti-developmental causes while my people suffer.”

Chiefs like Goodstriker and Ross recognize the Indian Act is holding Indigenous people back. They have seen and lived it.

The Good News We are finally at the point in history where a significant number of Indigenous leaders now embrace economic development. And, development of energy and infrastructure like pipelines

is increasingly on their economic and political radar.

The National Coalition of Chiefs (NCC) is a prime example of Indigenous people pursuing real change.

The NCC was formed recently by Indigenous chiefs and Métis leaders in response to the poverty crisis and social despair that currently exists in their communities across Canada.

NCC is an alliance of prodevelopment Indigenous people that advocates for the development of oil and gas resources in their communities. Energy development in these communities provides much-needed jobs and opportunities to help defeat on-reserve poverty.

These chiefs, Indigenous entrepreneurs and other leaders are tired of Indigenous peoples being misrepresented as anti-development by special-interest groups.

Protecting Property Rights Responsible resource development, including oil and natural gas development, is seen by the NCC as vital to Indigenous communities’ economies, sustainability, and self-determination.

But how can Indigenous people participate in the energy sector and greater economy when they possess even fewer property rights than other Canadians?

In Canada, property rights are not protected, landowners can be expropriated by Ottawa and the provinces for energy transport projects. Here

It will be through property rights and respect for all landowners and every Energy Corridor Canadian that we will get energy and pipeline projects built again in this country.

38

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER CAEPL A .ORG

in Canada, even pipeline companies don’t have property rights—which is why we have seen so many projects strangled by red tape, placed in suspended animation, or killed outright.

CAEPLA sees a lot of promise in this emerging pro-development movement of Indigenous leadership and communities.

Indigenous Communities are Landowners, too If the pro-development, pro-free enterprise Indigenous leadership we see coming into its own today can also achieve greater sovereignty and demand property rights, there is a tremendous opportunity for Indigenous communities to join with the broader landowner movement.

Instead of having green extremists, politicians and regulators pit Indigenous people against farmers, ranchers and other landowners, we might instead one day soon join together to secure property rights for every Canadian.

It will be through property rights and respect for all landowners and every Energy Corridor Canadian that we will get energy and pipeline projects built again in this country.

It will be the grassroots organizations, including and especially the Indigenous communities, that will reboot the Canadian economy through respect for property rights and a free market.

CAEPLA welcomes the emergence of the NCC and its pro-energy, pro-development program. Together we will work with Energy Corridor Canadians and industry to resurrect the energy transport sector—and the Canadian economy.

We hope you’ll join us. 

BY C. KENNETH REEDER

Want to end Indigenous Activist Veto over Energy Projects?

Support real sovereignty for Indigenous Canadians

Alamy Stock Images

W

hen a federal court killed the National Energy Board’s approval of the Trans Mountain expansion (TMX), Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson declared, “This decision is a monumental win for the rights of Indigenous peoples and all of us who stand with them.”

Was he right?

One of the unfortunate tendencies in modern democracy is the crude

tribalism that appeals to people as if they were part of some collectivist blob with uniform interests, rather than a multitude of individuals and groups with their own specific goals and values.

This is especially true in the ongoing Canadian public dialogue about Indigenous peoples.

Presumably, the Federal Court of Appeal decision on TMX was a big victory for the dozen or so Indigenous applicants in on the appeal.

But what about all the Indigenous groups who support TMX?

Kinder Morgan approached more than 130 Indigenous groups to seek support for the TMX project (now embarrassingly owned by Ottawa).

Project opponents will eagerly point out that a majority did not support the project.

Yet, every Indigenous group whose reserve lands actually touched the project did end up giving their support to TMX. Remember that the federal court that quashed the TMX approval said Ottawa failed to adequately consult with Indigenous groups. Would the

CAEPL A .ORG

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

39

Every Indigenous group whose reserve lands actually touched [TMX] did end up giving their support. groups directly affected by the project that gave support say they were inadequately consulted? Probably not.

This legal challenge didn’t come from Indigenous people as a unified group, but only a small minority allied with the cities of Vancouver and Burnaby and radical environmental organizations.

Consider another story: the massive $16 billion Eagle Spirit Pipeline proposal. This is even larger than the Northern Gateway project that was killed by the Trudeau government.

This proposal not only has Indigenous support along the right-of-way, but would be owned and spearheaded by them.

Despite this support and encouragement from major energy producers, there is a huge obstacle—the new tanker moratorium Ottawa imposed on B.C.’s North Coast. As long as that’s in play, Eagle Spirit is dead.

Please think carefully about what’s happening here. When is it fair for one group’s values to override others? How does a society resolve these sorts of clashing interests?

What if some of Canada’s Indigenous groups want pipelines and tanker traffic and others don’t?

Many environmentalists patronizingly claim to speak for Canada’s Indigenous communities. Chief Ernie Crey of B.C.’s Cheam First Nation describes this as “red-washing” the radical environmentalist agenda.

The Indigenous groups that want pipelines and resource development

also care about the environment and they do not need anyone to speak for them, nor do they want some distant minority to obstruct their goals.

Many Indigenous groups clearly support oil and gas production and the infrastructure needed to get those resources to the best consumer (to get the best price). Others want nothing to do with the fossil fuel industry.

That’s fine in and of itself. The problem is Indigenous people don’t really get to make their own choices on what is supposedly “their land.”

What if they could? What if pipeline projects and energy development did not need to be held captive by politicians, environmentalists, or some Indigenous minority claiming to speak on behalf of all Indigenous Canadians?

The “classical liberal” solution to this kind of problem is sovereignty and self-determination.

Nearly 90 per cent of Canada is “Crown land”—in other words, the federal government owns it. Canada’s “Indian reservations” are Crown land as well. Indigenous people do not own this land. They do not have full and exclusive control over it. The federal government (particularly the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs) has a major role in managing the land and resources of Indigenous communities.

Basically, Ottawa is letting them use the land but without the full rights of ownership and sovereignty.

Indigenous Canadians are tenants

True sovereignty would lead to more major pipeline projects and more enrichment of Canada’s Indigenous communities, while respecting their rights.

40

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER CAEPL A .ORG

and Ottawa is the landlord. This inevitably creates conflict, especially when you get into the legal minefield of things like “duty to consult,” which basically no one understands.

But what if our country abandoned the reservation system and simply ceded huge tracts of land with coastal access to our Indigenous people?

What if bands could use the land how they see fit—even sell it if they wanted?

What if Indigenous communities had full sovereignty to choose anything from maximum resource development to leaving land untouched?

What if they could negotiate their own agreements with pipeline companies, and other distant bands would have no say in the matter?

What if the politicians in Ottawa or Vancouver—who are far away, well paid and comfortable, yet blind to the economic needs of Indigenous people in remote areas—had no control over whether something like Northern Gateway got built?

Many great political philosophers have pointed out that there are no real conflicts of interest between free people. Sovereignty means one group has control over its own affairs and other groups control theirs.

Instead of turning people against each other, sovereignty allows people to pursue their own destiny.

In practical terms, true sovereignty would lead to more major pipeline projects and more enrichment of Canada’s Indigenous communities, while respecting their rights instead of pitting people against each other.

For the sake of our energy industry and the fortunes of Canada’s Indigenous peoples, we need to start seriously considering radical ideas like this. 

BY ANNETTE SCHINBORN

Back by Popular Demand The CAEPLA Workshop Series combines professional development, social interaction and great entertainment

Photo courtesy of Enbridge

O

ne of the big lessons front line members of the landowner movement have learned over the years is that landowners need to work together to protect their property rights when dealing with energy companies. This is true despite the fact that farmers and ranchers are independent people who naturally don’t feel like they need any help making decisions.

At CAEPLA, our experience has been that pretty much everyone is like that—whether they are farmers, ranchers, acreage or recreational property owners.

But even in the information age we live in, none of us can possibly know it all.

Of course, it is true we are knowledgeable in our area of specialization.

Farmers are familiar with crop rotations, the type of chemical they need for a particular crop, the type of seed they need along with everything else that goes into surviving and thriving in modern agribusiness.

And continuing education is probably more important in farming than in any other career or business.

But no matter how well you think you know “your” land agent, most people forget that the agent’s first loyalty and fiduciary duty is to the company they work for—not you.

Good chance you’ve had plenty of land agents at your kitchen table and signed enough agreements to feel familiar with whatever they put in front of you, even if you are not an expert in the fine print.

Perhaps your own lawyer has even said, “Sure, this looks like a standard agreement.”

What CAEPLA has learned from decades of experience, though, is that most lawyers are not as up to speed on easement agreements, regulations and the fundamentals of property rights as they ought to be.

And why would a landowner or even most lawyers know all these intricacies? After all, you are busy running your business and looking after your family. You are a specialist in agriculture. A land agent is a specialist in getting easement agreements signed as quickly as possible with as little fuss as possible.

That is why you need CAEPLA. Fortunately, dealing with land agents and ultimately working with companies directly to achieve a “win, win”

CAEPL A .ORG

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER

41

42

PIPEL INE OBSERV ER CAEPL A .ORG

Research is key to the continuing education of the landowner movement. Out of the belief that learning is a lifetime commitment and knowledge is power came our increasingly popular Workshop Series. Think of it as a hybrid—a cross between professional development and real-world social networking.

The CAEPLA Workshop Series was designed by and for landowners.

The inaugural workshop debuted in November 2015, and has grown steadily ever since. It has covered topics including safely crossing pipelines, integrity digs, biosecurity, pipeline construction 101 and remediation 101.

The pipeline construction 101 event presented an interactive, hands-on pipeline model that illustrated the process of transporting different types of oil products—from holding tank to refinery.

The latest and best workshop of the series so far was this past December 2018. A highlight was Enbridge’s interactive pipeline model. Presented

by Peter Hansen, senior advisor of community relations with Enbridge, it illustrated the different types of oil products from oil sands crude to sweet crude and the products that flow through Enbridge pipelines.

Families brought school-aged children. They loved the hands-on educational approach and were highly

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 non-profits 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.

Photo courtesy of Enbridge

business agreement for you is our specialty. And has been for decades.

One hard-learned lesson is that the National Energy Board (NEB) is not your friend. The NEB came into this world as an expropriator, and, even as it has pretended to be all things to all people in recent years, it remains an agent of legal land theft.

Its heir apparent, the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER), is likely to be much worse.

As a pipeline landowner, you will have this infrastructure on your property for a lifetime. And once an Energy Corridor Canadian, always an Energy Corridor Canadian—where one pipe is laid down, others are sure to follow.

CAEPLA built our business representing yours—we are the landowner’s advocate on the ground. We’re there for you, the landowner, from the conception of a pipeline project through to abandonment, decommissioning and beyond.

That’s why we have been working hard with industry, driving critical research into soil sciences and remediation, so property owners don’t need to worry about what’s left on their land long after a pipe has been replaced. This is all part of our commitment to promoting the stewardship rights and responsibilities of farmers and ranchers.

engaged, asking questions and commenting on what they were learning.

And the Workshop Series has built on its educational and social foundations to include great entertainment value, too!

Special guest and reality TV star Greg “the Tornado Hunter” Johnson inspired everyone with his often humorous tales of risk-taking. He is one of North America’s top professional storm-chasers and severe weather experts.

Now, Greg doesn’t have pipelines on his property. Like most Canadians, his exposure to the pipeline industry is what he’s heard on the news. As he listened to Peter Hansen talk about the types of oil, the many products we use every day that are produced from the different refined products, and the economic impact on our country, he turned to Dave Core (CAEPLA’s director of special projects) and said, “My friends need to hear this, everyone needs to hear this!”

By popular demand, the Workshop Series will continue across the country. We look forward to “taking the show on the road” so more Energy Corridor Canadians can connect at an informative, interactive, and entertaining event across pipeline country —stay tuned— check CAEPLA.org for details! 

The CAEPLA Workshop Series

CAEPLA WORKSHOP SERIES

Designed as a service to landowners.

THESE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONTINUAL LEARNING HAVE ALREADY COVERED: HOW TO CROSS THE LINE - SAFELY

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.

“VERY INFORMATIVE AND INTERESTING. CONTINUE WITH THE WORKSHOPS TO BUILD A CLOSER RELATIONSHIP WITH COMPANIES.” “THE TOPICS AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTERACT ARE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. IT IS ALWAYS INTERESTING TO LEARN ABOUT THE INDUSTRY.”

BIOSECURITY

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.

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.