Public Inquiry into October 17 Raid

New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance Calls for Public Inquiry into October 17 Raid
Group echoes fears of further conflict expressed by Amnesty International open letter to premier

December 10, 2013 (Moncton, NB) – On this, International Human Rights Day, the New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance (NBASGA) is asking the provincial government for an independent, public inquiry into events surrounding the October 17 RCMP raid on a peaceful shale gas protest camp near Rexton.

IMAGE - March on Route 134 in Rexton of community supporters against shale gas (CBC, October 1, 2013)The group echoes the fears expressed in an Amnesty International letter to Premier David Alward and his cabinet dated, November 1, that unless steps are taken to rebuild the relationship with Indigenous Peoples with respect to resource development, further incidents could occur.

Amnesty International says that this incident “could have been avoided had the province acted in a manner consistent with its obligations to respect the human rights of Indigenous peoples under Canadian and international law.” When the world’s foremost human rights organization expresses concern about human rights issues in New Brunswick, citizens should be concerned as well.

NBSAGA believes the people of New Brunswick have a right to know the reasons behind the sudden escalation in the use of force on October 17.  Today, they sent a letter to the Premier and cabinet, as well as opposition leaders, requesting the inquiry and saying there are many unanswered questions about what transpired at Rexton.

“We would like an independent public inquiry to examine what role this failure to respect the human rights of Indigenous peoples may have played in the events leading up to October 17,” says Jim Emberger, spokesman for NBASGA.  “An independent, impartial inquiry held at arm’s length from government is necessary because the Provincial Government itself played a role in those events.”

Since opposition began, thousands of people have visited peaceful demonstration sites across the province bringing supplies, and financial and moral support without incident. Rexton was no different until the morning of October 17.

woman_Elsi“From what we can see,” notes Emberger, “there was no threat to public safety until police, advancing with drawn guns and accompanied by dogs and snipers in camouflage, attacked unarmed civilians, including women and children, with pepper spray and non-lethal rounds.”

“Use of force must always be a last resort and the scale and nature of the force deployed must be in proportion to the need to protect public safety,” writes Amnesty International.

Among its many other questions, NBASGA asks why police did not first consult with First Nations’ chiefs who were vocal advocates of non-violence as a means of addressing safety concerns without armed force.  Instead, the RCMP arrested Chief Sock and his counselors, thus preventing them from intervening in the situation.  “Arresting a respected chief who has repeatedly stressed the importance of peaceful protest is baffling,” says Emberger.

NBASGA also questions why police continued allowing citizens to enter the site, considering the police themselves claim it was a dangerous situation threatening public safety.

As well, despite a massive police presence, RCMP vehicles were set ablaze with no police intervention and, to date, no arrests of suspects for arson.

The NBASGA and other anti-shale groups have been engaged in peaceful education, discussion and debate for three years and it is their intent to remain that way. They recognize that peaceful protest may include civil disobedience, but never violence, and feel acts of civil disobedience have occurred only because of government refusal to address citizen concerns in any meaningful way.

“The current and continuing threat of violence was initiated by the RCMP/government in the Rexton raid,” says Emberger, “and this violence has drawn the public’s attention away from the important issues, and also from the coverage of recent significant scientific, economic and political reports and events concerning shale gas.”

Therefore, it is in the public’s interest to have an independent investigation of the Rexton event, not only to find ways to diffuse future incidents, but also to allow the public discourse and media coverage to return to the discussion of the topic of shale gas.

Link to Amnesty International Letter

Amnesty International Speaks Out

collage3The Nobel Prize winning organization, Amnesty International, has written an open letter to Premier Alward concerning the events at Rexton that took place on October 17, 2014, and the issue of free, prior and informed consent with the people of the First Nations community of Elsipogtog.

They lay the blame for the situation on the government’s failure to follow Canadian and international law on the topic and for the violence resulting from an overwhelming police response.


 

Open Letter concerning anti-fracking protests at the Elsipogtog Mi’kmaq Nation

David Alward, Premier of New Brunswick
Centennial Building
P.O. Box 6000
Fredericton, NB E3B 5H1

Dear Premier Alward:

Our organizations are deeply concerned by the Province of New Brunswick’s response to anti-fracking protests at the Elsipogtog Mi’kmaq Nation. We are appreciative of the efforts of all involved to allow a cooling off period following the violence of October 17. However, it is our view that this clash could have been avoided had the province acted in a manner consistent with its obligations to respect the human rights of Indigenous peoples under Canadian and international law. Furthermore, we are concerned that unless the province adopts an approach consistent with these obligations, further clashes may occur.

In 2007, an Ontario public inquiry into police and government response to Aboriginal protest – the Ipperwash Inquiry – concluded that blockades and occupations are “symptoms” of the long-standing failure of governments in Canada to resolve land and resource disputes in a fair, timely and effective manner. In the Inquiry report, Justice Sidney Linden wrote that blockades and occupations “occur when members of an Aboriginal community believe that governments are not respecting their treaty or Aboriginal rights, and that effective redress through political or legal means is not available.” Justice Linden called for a redoubling of efforts “to build successful, peaceful relations with Aboriginal peoples…so that we can all live together peacefully and productively.”

“It is our view that this clash could have been avoided had the province acted in a manner consistent with its obligations to respect the human rights of Indigenous peoples under Canadian and international law.”

In this spirit, our organizations highlight four areas where we believe the province of New Brunswick can do more to rebuild just relations with Indigenous Peoples in relation to resource development and the potential for disputes.

First, it is critical to acknowledge that Indigenous Peoples have rights to their lands, territories and resources that predate the creation of the Canadian state. These pre-existing rights are affirmed in the Peace and Friendship Treaties, in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, and in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as in authoritative international human rights instruments including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Canada’s failure to protect these rights has been repeatedly condemned by international human rights bodies, including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which found that the comprehensive claims processes fall below international standards of justice. Your government can make a meaningful contribution by communicating clearly that these rights exist and must be respected.

Second, the inherent land rights of Aboriginal peoples cannot be ignored in the day-to-day operations of the government. Doing so is both discriminatory and contrary to the rule of law. Canadian courts have set out a mandatory constitutional duty to consult with Indigenous peoples with the goal of identifying and substantially accommodating their concerns, before any decisions are made that could affect these rights. For such consultation to be meaningful, Indigenous peoples’ knowledge and perspective must be part of the determination of whether or not a particular proposal could have a harmful impact on their rights and use of the land. Furthermore, the duty of consultation and accommodation, and the inter-related obligation for governments to deal honourably with Aboriginal peoples, cannot be met if there is a predetermination that projects will go ahead regardless of legitimate concerns raised by the affected communities. Accordingly, our organizations urge your government to retract statements indicating that the province is already committed to shale gas development, regardless of opposition.

rexton_oct 7

Third, whenever a proposed project has the potential for impacts on the cultures, livelihoods, health and well-being of Indigenous peoples, or where questions remain about the extent of the possible impacts, a very high standard of precaution is required to ensure that no further harm is inflicted on Indigenous peoples. Canadian courts have said that the “full consent” of Aboriginal peoples may be required on “very serious” matters. International human rights instruments, and the jurisprudence of international human rights bodies, clearly establish a duty to obtain the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of Indigenous peoples as a precautionary measure or heightened safeguard for their rights. In fact, just days before violence erupted over the shale oil explorations in New Brunswick, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples reminded governments in Canada that FPIC is generally required whenever large scale resource development projects are being considered that could impact the rights of Indigenous peoples. Our organizations call on New Brunswick to acknowledge that shale gas exploration and development on or near the traditional lands of Indigenous peoples is clearly an example where the safeguard of free, prior and informed consent is appropriate and necessary.

Finally, our organizations highlight the need to ensure appropriate police response in the unresolved conflicts over Indigenous lands rights. In all instances, police have a clear responsibility to respect and protect human rights. While police have an obligation to protect public safety and respond to criminal offences, police must also act to respect the right of peaceful protest and assembly and act to protect the lives and safety of those involved in protests. Use of force must always be a last resort and the scale and nature of the force deployed must be in proportion to the need to protect public safety. In the Ipperwash Inquiry report, Justice Linden called on Ontario to adopt a province-wide peacekeeping policy based on these principles to ensure that police response to Aboriginal protest would not be politicized and that risks of violence could be minimized. Our organizations strongly urge all governments in Canada to also publicly endorse and adopt such crucial policies.

Yours sincerely,

Alex Neve, Amnesty International Canada
Contact: cbenjamin@amnesty.ca

Lesley Robertson, Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers)
Contact: jennifer@quakerservice.ca

Ed Bianchi, KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives
Contact: ebianchi@kairoscanada.org

Alberta Stories

albertavoicesWe hear a lot about Alberta…

As UNB economics professor, Dr. Rod Hill, pointed out in a lengthy examination earlier this year in the Telegraph Journal,  “only 0.1 per cent of Alberta’s natural gas is from shale.”

Likewise, despite calling them ‘world class’, Alberta has few and very weak regulations on shale gas.  For instance, unless regulations have been recently changed, Alberta does not even require testing of nearby water wells before drilling or fracking.

Despite this, we are constantly told that they have no problems.

A recent Alberta website – Alberta Voices – has begun documenting the stories and experiences of Alberta residents affected by a largely unregulated gas and oil industry.  These stories are well-researched and available in print or video format.

No Contamination? Ever?

Are you confused by industry claims about the long history of fracking with no contamination?

The article below contains two short videos by experts that explain the confusion – both are under 3 minutes long and were made for the recent moratorium battles in Colorado. These videos feature local and national experts who touch on economics, air pollution, groundwater contamination and renewable energy solutions. The first video features EPA whistleblower Wes Wilson and the second features Cornell scientist Tony Ingraffea.

Check out the entire Colorado article here.

Or, for a more detailed history and explanation of the gas industry’s confusing wordplay:

http://blog.skytruth.org/2013/11/fracking-word-games.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Skytruth+%28SkyTruth%29

License vs Lease

Are exploration licenses and production leases of shale gas really separate things?

stanley_aug18Our government says not to worry about seismic testing, because it is only exploration.

NB’s Oil and Gas Act – 26(3), explains how to change from exploration to production:

 A license to search may be converted to a lease in its entirety at the end of the license term, if in the opinion of the Minister, all exploration commitments under the license have been met.  

What this means:  As long as a company spends the required amount during the phase of exploration, it is guaranteed a production lease.  There is no process in between. A license to explore becomes a lease to begin extraction.

 

Resource Link

Find out whether you live within a lease area with this interactive map:  http://geonb.snb.ca/ong/

 

Join the Crowd: Vote for a Moratorium

Hopewell Rocks

Here in New Brunswick, much of the expected shale gas extraction is around our biggest tourist attractions….including our own UNESCO Fundy Biosphere Reserve and the Hopewell Rocks.

But we are not alone in our desire to protect our treasured natural resources from an invasive industry.

Newfoundland has put a moratorium on shale gas exploration into effect, primarily over fears about effects on tourism around Gros Morne Park.
A resolution from the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities supports a province-wide moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and calls for a dialogue about the practice of hydrofracking between First Nations, federal, provincial and municipal governments on potential impacts.
In the Prince Edward Island Legislature, on November 26th 2013, the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Environment, Energy and Forestry recommended a Moratorium on High Volume Hydraulic Fracking on PEI.
With existing moratoria in Quebec and New York, New Brunswick is now the only jurisdiction in our region pushing ahead with shale gas development.
Voters in the Colorado cities of Boulder, Fort Collins and Lafayette approved anti-fracking initiatives by wide margins in early November, despite an industrycampaign against the measures that cost at least $875,000.
Unifor, Canada’s largest private sector union (300,000 with 40,000 in the energy sector), called for a Canada-wide moratorium on all new oil and gas fracking. They have raised concerns about safety and environmental risks as well as the lack of
informed consent by First Nations about fracking activities on traditional lands.
Click here for our list of the New Brunswick municipalities and Provincial groups of all kinds that have called for a moratorium.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

The New Brunswick Government says it’s all about ‘Jobs-Jobs-Jobs.’

We think maybe not so many.

jobsA new study from independent, nonpartisan fiscal research groups in the six states comprising the Marcellus and Utica Shale formations in the US concludes that the shale gas industry’s effect on job growth was negligible.

“Shale drilling has made little difference in job growth in any of the six states we studied,” said Stephen Herzenberg, executive director of the Keystone Research Center in Pennsylvania. “We know this because we now have data on what happened, not what industry supporters hoped would happen.”

Report Highlights:

  • The number of shale jobs created is far below industry claims and remains a small share of overall employment.
  • Between 2005 and 2012, fewer than four new direct shale-related jobs have been created for each new well drilled, much less than estimates as high as 31 direct jobs per well in some industry-financed studies.
  • Industry-funded studies have used questionable assumptions in economic modeling to inflate the number of jobs created in related supply chain industries (indirect jobs) as well as those created by the spending of income earned from the industry or its suppliers (induced jobs).

(Note: The report on New Brunswick by Deloitte, which the government keeps quoting, predicts 21 jobs per well.

Why the exaggeration?

“Industry supporters have exaggerated the jobs impact in order to minimize, or avoid altogether, taxation, regulation and even careful examination of shale drilling,” said Frank Mauro, executive director of the Fiscal Policy Institute in New York.

Resource Links

Link #1 summarizes the report; Link#2  is the fiscal report itself; Link #3 is our own info sheet on jobs.

  1. http://ecowatch.com/2013/11/21/study-confirms-job-exaggerated-by-fracking-industry/
  2. http://www.multistateshale.org/
  3. NBASGA’s Info sheet on jobs

KAIROS Speaks Out

September 19, 2013

Hon. David Alward
Premier of New Brunswick
PO Box 6000
Fredericton, NB
E3B 5H1

Dear Premier Alward:

The Saint John and Area KAIROS is a local group affiliated with KAIROS Canada: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives, linking, Anglicans, Lutherans, Mennonites, Presbyterians, Quakers, Roman Catholics and United Church members from across Canada in “Faithful Action for Justice and Peace”.

IMG_1014a

Since this is a Christian organization, we hold before us the life and work of Jesus when grappling with present day peace and social justice issues.  “What would Jesus do?” is a question easily tossed about, but when taken seriously, demands honest, critical study, thought, and prayer.   It is only after such work that our local KAIROS group writes to you concerning the exploration for, and extraction of, shale gas in New Brunswick.

God’s gift of creation is rooted in the interdependence of all living things.  When decisions are being made that place the economy above the integrity of creation, it is time to speak and to act.

We appreciate the seriousness of New Brunswick’s financial situation; however, we do not feel the exploration and extraction of shale gas is a supportable solution.  An industry that threatens our water, both ground water and municipal water supplies for future generations, an industry that does not disclose the chemicals injected into the ground nor its plan for dealing with the millions of liters of polluted water when brought back to the surface, an industry that evokes high carbon dioxide emissions, an industry that is driven by corporations from away that will go away, leaving communities devastated, soil contaminated, air and water polluted is not an industry that New Brunswickers want or deserve.

Experience has shown that multinational corporations, when called to account, wield their power and wealth to silence or suppress local citizens in their attempts to obtain justice.  The hydraulic fracturing method of gas extraction takes place in rural areas where rallying significant opposition and launching  costly law suits against big business is difficult, if not impossible . The Kingdom of God that Jesus announced is a shared way of life in which powerless people are given preferential attention.

We are proud to join with New Brunswickers:  Aboriginal, English, French, all concerned citizens alike who are calling to account the practices of the gas industry before God’s creation suffers further wounding, under the guise of progressive economic advancement.

Sincerely,

Rev. Mary Wanamaker
For Saint John and Area KAIROS

This land is my land…or is it?

 (with notes from R. LeChance and D. Core)

Last week in Hillsborough, Dave Core, founding president of CAEPLA, Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowners Association poke to a full house of southern NB landowners on the issue of leasing land for pipelines or gas/oil wells.

davecoreDave has spent decades advocating for landowner property rights across the country. He jokingly commented that, despite his ponytail, he was not an environmentalist, but was, in fact, pro-development. But never at the expense of the landowner.

Dave hopes to create more responsible land stewardship and to ensure industry is held to higher levels of compensation, accountability and safety through lease agreements.

Pipeline companies are beginning to survey lands east and west of Fredericton for the proposed West-East pipeline and the government has scheduled town hall meetings in a limited number of communities. At the same time, gas companies are exploring for shale gas in south-east New Brunswick and preparing for further development in other areas.

Dave-Core-250x180

 

Pipeline surveyors are already contacting people in the Saint John River Valley. Listen to this interview on CBC and this online article.

Dave’s talk in summary:

  • Gas and oil companies lease the surface of your land to extract the resources.
  • Pipeline companies can acquire the use of your land through “Easement Agreements” that leave your name on title.

In both cases the energy companies can apply to the government through “regulatory processes” for “right of entry” (expropriation).

This takes away your right to negotiate a fair contract protecting your best interests. You have no leverage to negotiate once your property rights have been taken by legislation that creates either ministerial or regulatory processes giving all the advantages to the oil/gas and pipeline industry. The only way to counter-balance this is when landowners work together to level the playing field and to force governments to change the legislation protecting property rights.

Here are some important points to understand, should someone approach you to lease/survey your land:

  • Most important: Do not sign any oil or gas leases or pipeline agreements (surveying, exploration, land, etc.) unless you know exactly what you are signing.  Signed documents of any type have been successfully used by pipeline and gas and oil companies to indicate the landowner’s approval for development. Even attending a ‘town hall’ consultation meeting and filling out a survey or information form can be used to ‘verify’ that the company has ‘consulted’ with you.
  • Pipeline companies do not want to own or lease your land; they want to take your land through an easement agreement which leaves your name on title. In this way, partial or total liability for any damages remains with the landowner.
  • Any easement on your land, including all future liabilities, will be tied to your property even if you attempt to sell it.  The easement may restrict your use or any future buyer’s use of the land.
  • If you refuse to sign an easement agreement, the company can apply for a ‘Right of Entry’ that the federal government’s National Energy Board will approve. This taking of land is to the financial benefit of pipeline company shareholders. It is rent control for pipeline monopolies.
  • Land agents will play neighbour against neighbour to make sure that they do not pay fair industrial rates for the land and to avoid signing an ironclad contract that protects your property.  You have little bargaining power as an individual.
  • Landowners across Canada now understand that the only way to get fair compensation for oil and gas leases is to talk to each other. The only way to protect your family’s safety, environment, businesses and investments is by working together to demand ironclad contracts and changes to government legislation respecting property rights. It is only the front line people, those directly affected, that can address these issues and protect our water and stewardship responsibilities.
  • Verbal assurances from a land agent or a gas company are not legally binding. Anything not written into the oil/gas lease or a pipeline easement is NOT in the agreement.
  • Very few lawyers have the necessary experience in property rights issues associated with the laws relating to gas companies and gas leases to actually address the best interests of an affected landowner. When landowners work together, they have leverage to negotiate better agreements and to hire legal counsel who understand the enacting legislation and will stand up for landowner rights.
  • Land agents do not look after your best interests. It is their job to acquire lease/easements at the lowest price with the least responsibility for their clients; i.e. the gas/pipeline companies. When you purchase a house through a realtor, they represent the seller, not the buyer.  Land agents represent the buyer (gas company), not the seller (property owner). Their fiduciary responsibility is to the company paying their contract not to the property owner; do not let them convince you otherwise.

The proposed west-east pipeline would be regulated by the National Energy Board (NEB), and their regulations supersede anything you agree to with the pipeline company, provincial environment or regulatory laws. Once the pipelines are abandoned with NEB approval, the NEB no longer has jurisdiction; responsibility falls back on the landowner. The landowner whose name is on the title, will fall prey to provincial environmental and safety laws, potentially making his/her property a brown space, like an abandoned gas station. This is why pipeline companies do not want to own the land their pipelines cross, they ultimately do not want responsibility when all is said and done.

The best way to protect your best interests when approached to lease land for pipelines or well pads is for landowners to work together to force contracts that are renegotiated or updated every 5 years. Contracts should address abandonment and other risks, liabilities, duty of care and other costs that are often left to affected landowners when they legally belong to pipeline companies.

By creating a NB Landowners Association, landowners form a united front enabling them to negotiate better easement agreements (or perhaps a lease with annual payments renegotiated every 5 years) that help protect safety and property values. It is only by working with your neighbours that you can level the playing field.

We need our local communities and our Provincial Governments to support us in holding the Federal government and its NEB responsible for our property rights.

About CAEPELA
CAEPLA has created an instruction bookletWhen the Landman Comes Calling – advising landowners of the risks of leasing. If you know of a neighbour who has been approached by a land agent or anyone else trying to acquire a land or pipeline lease, share or print the attached document with them.  Also share the document with anyone who has stated they are willing to lease their land.