All posts by Common Sense Canadian

Sobeys Pulls Farmed Salmon, Reviews Handling Procedures Due to Sea Lice Discovery in Stores

October 23, 2012Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquacultureAquaculture, SalmonCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from the Chronicle Herald on the decision by popular Canadian grocery chain Sobeys to pull farmed salmon from its Maritime shelves this past week over the discovery of whole fish with sea lice. (Oct. 23, 2012)

Sobeys found sea lice on about a dozen whole Atlantic salmon removed from store shelves last week and is reviewing quality control with the supplier, a grocery chain spokeswoman said Monday.

Whole Atlantic salmon have not yet been returned to the shelves.

“We pulled whole Atlantic salmon from Maritime store shelves after having the issue brought to our attention through social media,” Cynthia Thompson, with Sobeys Inc. in Stellarton, said in an interview.

“This amounted to about 80 fish, and staff who conducted the inspections found sea lice in some of these fish.”

Thompson said she understood sea lice were found on fewer than a dozen of the fish removed from the shelves.

The fish were removed from stores and inspected after a consumer posted a photo on Facebook of some sea lice on a whole Atlantic salmon allegedly purchased in Truro.

“We’re currently reviewing all the related quality-control issues with the wholesaler and expect to have whole Atlantic salmon back on the shelves in the not-to-distant future,” said Thompson.

“We, of course, urge any consumer experiencing any sort of quality control issue with any product in any of our stores to contact us as soon as possible.”

Sobeys sells few whole Atlantic salmon and more of the regular retail cuts and fillets of salmon, which were were not affected by Thursday’s product removal.

Sea lice affects farmed and wild salmon and is typically removed before the fish find their way into the retail distribution system, said Nell Halse, spokeswoman with Cooke Aquaculture Inc. in Blacks Harbour, N.B.

Halse said the whole Atlantic salmon involved in the clearance of the product from Sobeys shelves last week did not come from a Cooke Aquaculture farm.

The fish were from a different supplier who was using a Cooke-owned distribution company, she said.

“We can track each of our fish from the egg to the plate,” Halse said of the company’s quality-control system.

The source of the fish has not been identified.

Mark Hume: Businessman Russ George defends Haida Ocean Fertilization Project

October 23, 2012Geoengineering, Ocean Health, OceansCommon Sense Canadian

Mark Hume: Businessman Russ George Defends Haida Ocean Fertilization Project — Russ George, head of a controversial geoengineering project, in a 2007 photo (Thor Swift/The New York Times)

Read this column from Mark Hume in the Globe and Mail on the ocean fertilization project that caught the world by surprise last week, provoking criticism over fears of geoengineering and unintended ecological consequences. (Oct. 19, 2012)

Russ George, who designed a controversial ocean fertilization experiment now under investigation by Environment Canada, says he is being vilified for daring to go where none have gone before.

But he is not backing away from his research project or apologizing for the way the project was conducted, off the coast of British Columbia, saying that he is out to save the world’s oceans and demonstrate how to halt global warming.

While the damage from climate change mounts, he said, others are only talking – while he is acting.

“I am the champion of this on the planet,” he said in an interview on Thursday.

“If the world does nothing but look into the future about CO2 and says we have to reduce our emissions and we do nothing about the lethal dose we’ve already administered, then it doesn’t matter,” he said.

“If somebody doesn’t step forward to save the oceans, it’s too late.”

Mr. George, a California businessman, worked with the Old Massett Village Council, on Haida Gwaii, to dump 100 tonnes of an iron sulphate mix into the Pacific. The goal of the project was to trigger a plankton bloom in the hope of reviving salmon runs – and to demonstrate a theory that global warming can be blunted by using massive amounts of ocean plankton to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

The experiment took place this summer, apparently without sanction from any official body. There have been widespread expressions of concern from scientists, who fear the experiment could backfire, and political leaders, who are concerned international agreements banning ocean fertilization have been violated.

“Environment Canada did not approve this non-scientific event. Enforcement officers are now investigating,” Environment Minister Peter Kent said in Parliament on Thursday. “This government takes very seriously our commitment to protect the environment and anyone who contravenes environmental law should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”

Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada, said the project is alarming.

“This kind of experiment is very, very risky business. Scientists have warned us it can destroy oceanic ecosystems, create toxic tides, and aggravate ocean acidification and global warming,” she said. “The bottom line is that ocean fertilization has a high potential of catastrophic effects and a low potential of success.”

Mr. George said his group advised the government all along of its plans and got legal opinions that they are not violating any international accords.

He said since news of the project broke earlier this week, he has been “under this dark cloud of vilification,” with some suggesting his motive is to profit through a carbon-trading scheme.

“I’m not a rich, scheming businessman, right. That’s not who I am. … This is my heart’s work, not my hip pocket work, right?” he said.

Anti-Fracking Candidate George Heyman Wins NDP Riding Nomination

October 23, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&Gas, Politics, Water and Hydrocarbons, Western Canadafracking, Oil and gas, PoliticsCommon Sense Canadian

Read this column from Vaughn Palmer in The Vancouver Sun on former BCGEU president and current Sierra Club BC leader George Heyman’s victory in Sunday’s Vancouver-Fairview NDP riding nomination. (Oct. 22, 2012)

VICTORIA — B.C. New Democrats have nominated a leading critic of expanded natural gas production as a candidate for the next election, setting the stage for a showdown over the practice known as fracking.

George Heyman, who won the party nomination in Vancouver-Fairview Sunday, has been one of the leaders in the fight against hydraulic fracturing, the growing practice of extracting natural gas from shale deposits by injecting the rock with water at high pressure.

Fracking accounts for about half of the natural gas production in B.C. and is the key to future expansion and hopes of exporting the product in liquefied form to markets in Asia.

But as executive director of Sierra Club BC, Heyman has challenged the “rapid expansion of fracking, without sufficient oversight and scientific review to address the long list of threats and risks.”

During his tenure, the club toured the province with Gasland, a U.S.-made anti-fracking documentary that illustrates concerns about gas contamination of groundwater with sensational footage of tap water being set on fire as it flows from a faucet in somebody’s home.

“Fracking is referred to by some as ‘the Tar Sands of Natural Gas’ in terms of the water and energy resources needed to extract the hard-to-reach shale deposits,” declared the club in calling for a moratorium on the practice.

“The B.C. government needs to take a huge step back from their aggressive pursuit of unconventional gas and fracking to allow time to better understand the impacts, keep B.C.’s northeast from becoming a fragmented wasteland of gas wells, respect indigenous rights and protect the health of northern residents.”

Heyman reiterated the call on the eve of the NDP nomination meeting in Fairview.

“I’m not proposing that we don’t sell any gas,” he told reporter Carlito Pablo from the Georgia Straight. “I am proposing that we stop the expansion of new frack wells until we have an appropriate public study on the health impacts, the community impacts, the water impacts, and the climate, greenhouse-gas-emissions impact.”

Law Professor Warns Harper About Canada-China Trade Deal

October 19, 2012Canada, PoliticsPolitics, Stephen HarperCommon Sense Canadian

Read this letter by Osgoode Law Professor and international trade expert Gus Van Harten, republished in The Tyee, to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, sounding alarms over a controversial new Canada-China trade deal, the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPPA). (Oct. 16, 2012)

Dear Prime Minister Harper and Minister Fast,

I am an expert in investment treaties. As a Canadian, I am deeply concerned about the implications for Canada of the Canada-China investment treaty. As I understand, the treaty is slated for ratification by your government on or about Oct. 31. I hope you will reconsider this course of action for these reasons.

1. The legal consequences of the treaty will be irreversible by any Canadian court, legislature or other decision-maker for 31 years after the treaty is given effect. The treaty has a 15-year minimum term, requires one year’s notice prior to termination, and adds another 15-years of treaty coverage for assets that are Chinese-owned at the time of termination. By contrast, NAFTA for example can be terminated on six months notice.

2. Other investment treaties (aka FIPAs) signed by Canada have a similar duration and, in this respect, are exceptional among modern treaties. Yet none put Canada primarily in the capital-importing position. As such, the Canada-China treaty effectively concedes legislative and judicial elements of our sovereignty in a way that other FIPAs do not. Chinese asset-owners in Canada will be able, at their option, to challenge Canadian legislative, executive, or judicial decisions outside of the Canadian legal system and Canadian courts.

3. To elaborate, the treaty will likely be largely de facto non-reciprocal due to anticipated in-flows of Chinese investment to Canada outstripping Canadian investment in China. The deal gives Cadillac legal status to Canadian investors in China and vice versa. Yet Canada will be much more exposed to claims and corresponding constraints as a result of the de facto non-reciprocity. Two awards of a billion dollars-plus, and many over $100 million, have been issued against countries to date under these treaties, with more likely on the way. The awards are immune from judicial review, largely or entirely, and are often extra-territorial, depending on how the investor’s lawyers frame the claim.

Norwegian Salmon Farming Giant Appeals Loss in Defamation Case Against Activist Don Staniford

October 16, 2012Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquacultureAquaculture, SalmonCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from CBC.ca on the decision by Mainstream Canada – BC-based subsidiary of Norwegian Government-owned Cermaq – to appeal anti-salmon farming activist Don Staniford’s recent victory over the defamation suit they brought against him at the BC Supreme Court. (Oct. 16, 2012)

The defamation case between a British Columbia salmon-farming company and an outspoken critic appears to be far from over.

Mainstream Canada said Monday that it would appeal a September decision by a B.C. Supreme Court justice to dismiss a defamation case against Don Staniford, but only hours later the British-born activist responded, saying he’d fight the appeal.

At issue is a 2011 Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture campaign that included images of cigarette-like packages and statements such as “Salmon Farming Kills Like Smoking.”

Justice Elaine Adair dismissed the case in September in favour of Staniford’s defence of fair comment, saying while his statements were defamatory and he was motivated by malice, the activist honestly believed in what he was saying and animosity wasn’t his dominant purpose.

“While it is disappointing that she ruled against us on a technical legal issue, we will pursue this vigorously in the court of appeal,” said David Wotherspoon, the company’s lawyer in a statement.

The company also said that Adair’s decision, if it stands, could compromise healthy debate on matters of public policy, and those debates should be based on fact, and critics should be accountable for their comments.

“Mainstream Canada and their parent company Cermaq have once again ignored the first rule of PR: when in a hole stop digging,” said Staniford, in response to Mainstream’s announcement Monday night.

“Cermaq’s knee-jerk reaction to appeal is yet another case of this multi-million dollar company shooting itself in the foot. Common sense is clearly not a currency this Norwegian-owned multinational is used to dealing in.”

Russian scientist: Polar bears will go extinct within decades

October 16, 2012Uncategorizedspecies at riskCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from the Vancouver Sun on the prediction by a Russian polar bear expert that due to arctic ice melt, polar bears will be extinct within decades. (Oct. 12, 2012)

While Arctic sea ice reached a record low this summer, it is not widely known that almost all the ice that melted or drifted away was on the Russian, not the Canadian and Greenlandic side of the great northern sea.

One immediate consequence has been further grief and peril for Russia’s already seriously distressed polar bear population.

“It is worse for Russian polar bears than the bears in Canada or Greenland because the pack ice is retreating much faster in our waters,” said Nikita Ovsyannikov, deputy director of Russia’s polar bear reserve on Wrangel Island in the Chukchi Sea to the northwest of Alaska. “The best habitat is quickly disappearing. It is extreme.

“What we are seeing right now is very late freezing. Our polar bear population is obviously declining. It used to be that new ice was thick enough for them to walk on in late October. It now will happen much later.”

Figuring out how many bears still survived on and near the Chukchi Sea – home to the largest of Russia’s four polar bear populations – was difficult because they were spread across such a vast area, said the zoologist, who has spent his life studying bears in the High Arctic.

He guessed that the number of bears around the Chukchi Sea, which also sometimes migrate in small numbers to western Alaska, had dropped over the past three decades from “about 4,000 to no more than 1,700 at best.”

The retreating ice that has placed many Russian bears in a catastrophic situation has turned out to be a boon to the country’s Arctic mariners.

Taking advantage of the unprecedented sea conditions, dozens of freighters, including several mammoth 170,000-dead-weight-ton tankers, have used the Northeast Passage during the summer and fall of 2011 and again this year to bring as much as 110,000 tonnes of liquefied natural gas at a time from western Russia through the Bering Strait to China.

With no ice yet present near the Russian coast, there has even been talk that it might be possible to keep what is called the “Northern Sea Road” open until January.

The situation was so grave this year that sea ice that had already melted by July is not expected to return until as late as next January in the waters above the continental shelf where Russian polar bears traditionally spend a good part of their lives hunting from drifting ice for ring seals.

The explanation for the sudden, further decline in sea ice this summer was unusually low pressure in the Eurasian coastal seas and in the Beaufort Sea and East Siberian Sea, combined with unusually high pressure centred over Greenland and the North Atlantic, according to the U.S.-based National Snow and Ice Data Center. Air temperatures across the Arctic rose by as much as three degrees Celsius this summer.

With no drifting pack ice near the shore to hunt from, Russia’s polar bears have faced a stark choice. They either must go far out to sea on pack ice that has been drifting away from the coast in the late spring, or forage for food as best they can on Russia’s few Arctic islands or along the coast. However, venturing far from land presents special problems for female bears who traditionally build their hibernation and birthing dens on land.

Tar Sands Pipeline to New England Being Plotted Behind Closed Doors, Envrionmental Groups Allege

October 16, 2012Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Tar SandsAlberta Tar Sands, Oil and gasCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from commondreams.org on the concerns of a group of US environmental groups that Exxon Mobil, Suncor and Enbridge are plotting behind closed doors to reverse the flow of a pipeline to allow Tar Sands bitumen to be pumped from Alberta to a deep water port in Maine. (Oct. 10, 2012)

A new analysis released today by national and regional environmental groups shows that US oil giant Exxon Mobile and Canada’s Suncor hold a majority stake in a pipeline system that local residents along its route fear could soon be used to transport tar sands from western Canada to the New England coast.The central concern of the report (pdf) surrounds a 2008 proposal by Canadian oil giant Enbridge to reverse the flow of existing east-to-west oil pipelines that would allow transport of tar sands oil—categorized by many as the “dirtiest oil in the world”—from Alberta to the deepwater harbor of Portland, Maine.

The local companies who manage the pipelines companies insist the idea has been shelved for economic reasons, but multiple recent actions lead the environmental groups to believe that the proposal is now being quietly revived behind closed doors. Pointedly, the groups argue that the oil giants who own these local pipeline subsidiaries should not be trusted.

“Unbeknownst to most of the public,” said the groups in a statement, “a major portion of the proposed tar sands pipeline that would cut across the Great Lakes, Ontario, Quebec and New England to Portland, Maine, is actually owned by oil giants Exxon-Mobil, Imperial Oil, and Suncor Energy – all of whom have a deep stake in tar sands extraction.”

As the report explains:

The line has two direct corporate owners: Montreal Pipe Line Limited (MPLL), which owns the stretch in Canada, from Montreal to the U.S. border; and the Portland Pipe Line Corporation, which owns the U.S. section and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MPLL. In turn, Montreal Pipe Line Limited’s ultimate parent is ExxonMobil: Exxon subsidiary Imperial Oil Limited holds a majority interest in the pipeline. A smaller portion is owned by the Canadian giant Suncor Energy. Imperial and Suncor are among the biggest developers of Alberta’s tar sands and stand to benefit greatly from this project to transport tar sands oil across the region for export.

With regionally-anchored names like “Montreal Pipe Line Limited” and “Portland Pipe Line Corporation,” the ten environmental groups involved with the report—which represent members in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont—claim that the international oil giants who own these subsidiary companies would rather hide the fact that some of the world’s most notorious polluters are operating in their backyards.

Study Shows CFL Lightbulbs Can Harm Human Skin Cells

October 16, 2012UncategorizedHealth and EnvironmentCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from examiner.com on a new study from tony Brook University that shows compact fluorescent light bulbs can harm human skin cells. (July 19, 2012)

Environmentalists have pushed to abolish traditional incandescent light bulbs, in order to reduce the amount of electricity needed to light up our homes.

However, a small but vocal minority has insisted that the curlicue-shaped compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) pose a threat to human health.

Now, a group of scientists at Stony Brook University has proven that CFLs do emit ultraviolet (UV) light rays that can harm human skin cells.

Cracks in CFL coating

In the first part of their study, the researchers purchased CFLs from different stores in two different counties. Then they measured the invisible UV rays given off by the bulbs when lit.

The rays appeared to escape through tiny cracks in the white phosphor coating on the inside of each CFL bulb’s glass. The phosphor particles actually glow with visible light as a result of an electrochemical reaction inside the bulb.

The scientists noted that these cracks in the phosphor were present in all the CFLs they studied. They found significant levels of UV were emitted from the bulbs.

Skin cell specialists

The research team included scientists from Stony Brook’s Advanced Energy Research and Technology Center (AERTC) and the New York State Stem Cell Science (NYSTEM).

The team exposed human skin tissue cells to the CFLs they had collected, as well as to traditional incandescent bulbs with the same brightness (intensity).

The scientists also added titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles to some of the skin cells, because this chemical is commonly used in sunblock lotions to absorb UV rays.

Damage from UV radiation

“Our study revealed that the response of healthy skin cells to UV emitted from CFL bulbs is consistent with damage from ultraviolet radiation,” said Miriam Rafailovich, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering and the lead scientist for the study.

“Skin cell damage was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 nanoparticles were introduced to the skin cells prior to exposure,” she said.

The researchers found that incandescent light of the same intensity had no effect on healthy skin cells, with or without the presence of TiO2. Incandescent lamps do not emit significant quantities of UV radiation.

Based on a European study

The Stony Brook scientists decided to research the possible effects of UV radiation from CFLs partly because of a 2008 European Commission study, conducted by the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR).

The European report had found that some CFLs emit UV radiation, which under prolonged exposures at short distances (less than 8 inches) may approach the workplace limit set to protect workers from skin and retinal damage.

However, at the time of the SCENIHR report, peer-reviewed test data comparing incandescent light bulbs to CFLs was not available to provide a clear answer to the questions of whether CFLs emit UV radiation that may be harmful to particularly sensitive patients, and whether they may be harmful to the general public when in close proximity to the skin.

Four years later, the Stony Brook team published its data in the peer-reviewed journal, Photochemistry and Photobiology.

Enbridge’s Pipeline Plans Keep Changing, Critics Charge

October 13, 2012Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersBC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Enbridge, Oil and gasCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from the Canadian Press on charges emerging from the latest round of National Energy Board hearings into Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline that the company and its consultants have no concrete plans for building the pipeline and addressing environmental concerns. (Oct. 12, 2012)

PRINCE GEORGE, B.C. — For critics, the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline is a moving target — literally — and the uncertainty of everything from the route to the type of steel that will be used in the pipeline is a source of frustration at environmental assessment hearings.

For a third day Thursday, a panel of experts who have worked on the project proposed by Calgary-based Enbridge were questioned under oath at final hearings in Prince George, B.C.

And for a third day, frustrations were palpable on both sides as interveners seeking answers about the $6-billion project came up against experts who simply don’t have definitive answers at this stage of the proposal.

“I can’t help but get the sense from some of the answers that this panel has given that very much what’s going on here is a work in progress, that you’ve put together a proposal and there’s a lot of preliminary process and preliminary design, but with respect to the actual pipeline — where it will go, what it will look like, how it will cross certain streams — that it’s very much, ’We don’t really know at this stage.’ Is that fair?” asked Tim Leadam, the lawyer for EcoJustice, which represents a coalition of conservation groups at the hearings.

Ray Doering, manager of engineering for the Northern Gateway project, said Enbridge has filed a preliminary design and supplemental information, and the review hearings themselves will result in further changes before a detailed design is completed.

“We have provided the preliminary feasibility assessments but we have made it very clear that there is further work and further process that needs to be undertaken to finalize those, crossing methodologies, in this case,” said Doering, one of nine experts sworn-in at the hearings.

Asked for specifics about the crossing of one of nearly 800 water course crossings on the latest incarnation of the pipeline route, Drummond Cavers, the project’s geotechnical engineer, said they are “part way through” geotechnical investigations.

Unable to get specific answers about another part of the route on the Maurice River, Leadam said he is trying to understand the process.

“Because what concerns me and my clients is mainly to what extent there’s continual changes to the design, continual changes to the route. At some point I’m trying to understand what exactly will be built,” he told the panel.

“Now I’m told there’s going to be a route revision V, so that means that there’s a different route that will be built than the one that we’ve all been focused upon, which is U.

“Do I have that evidence right, Mr. Doering, that there’s now a route revision V that’s being contemplated?”

“Yes,” Doering. “We have identified the anticipated changes going from Route U to Route V.”

B.C. Environment Minister Terry Lake had a similar complaint after the province’s initial two days of questioning.

Lake said he was “extremely concerned” about the incomplete responses from Enbridge experts.

“One thing that is crystal clear after the last two days is that Enbridge/Northern Gateway is putting off making commitments about including these systems in the pipeline design until after they get approval to proceed,” Lake said in a statement after hearings ended on Wednesday.

John Carruthers, president of Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, said outside the hearings that after the environmental assessment is complete, final design and planning continue under the eyes of the National Energy Board.

“We will have spent $300 million getting through this part of the process, to getting to a decision: Is the pipeline in the Canadian interest and what will be the environmental impact of that project,” Carruthers told reporters.

“After those larger questions are answered at this stage, the NEB has a very thorough process as the specifics of construction are decided.”

The company has filed more than 20,000 pages of documents with the joint review panel, more information than has been filed on any pipeline in the past, he said.

“People want to know the specifics, but there’s another phase if the project is approved, then we have to go into the more detailed design and the NEB approves that as well,” he said.

That’s not good enough for those concerned about potential environmental impacts of the 1,100-kilometre twin pipelines that will carry diluted bitumen from the Alberta oil sands to a tanker port on the B.C. coast, and condensate from Kitimat back to Bruderheim, Alta.

Keystone XL Pipeline Protests: TransCanada Security Detains New York Times Reporter

October 12, 2012Energy and Resources, Oil&GasKeystone XL, Oil and gasCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from the Huffington Post on the ongoing protests in Texas against initial construction work on the Keystone XL Pipeline. This week, a reporter and photographer from the New York Times were allegedly detained while covering the protests by security staff for the pipeline builder with the help of law enforcement. (Oct. 11, 2012)

Ongoing resistance and confrontations over the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline have reportedly sparked the detainment of two journalists in Texas this week. The news comes on the heels of other clashes between environmental protesters, law enforcement and security workers.

Following allegations of aggressive tactics by Texas law enforcement and the arrests of actress Daryl Hannah and a 78-year-old landowner, reports have surfaced that a reporter working for the The New York Times and a photographer were detained by security officials representing the pipeline’s builder, Alberta-based energy company TransCanada.

Reporter Dan Frosch and photographer Brandon Thibodeaux were covering the pipeline protest from private property, with the landowner’s permission, according to FuelFix. They were detained by “a private security worker and a law enforcement official,” but subsequently released after identifying themselves as members of the press.

Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy told the site, “They were released and told that they were risking arrest for trespassing if they stayed where they were, so they left the location.”

According to NPR’s StateImpact project, Murphy said, “We obviously don’t want to be in a position where our reporters are facing arrest.”

TransCanada is using easements to construct its oil sands pipeline through areas of private property in the central U.S. FuelFix reported, “TransCanada could not immediately be reached to answer questions about the incident, but in an email a spokesman implied that the journalists did not have the right to report where they were because they were on the company’s right of way for pipeline construction.”

Tar Sands Blockade, a coalition of landowners and climate activists opposing the pipeline, said in a statement:

These events mark the latest in a series in which journalists and the Constitutional ideal of a free press suffer the same disrespect and abuse that TransCanada has shown to families along the Keystone XL pipeline route for years. Reports have included open threats of arrest on private property, the confiscation of cameras and video equipment, and arrests of by-standers on public right of ways. All the while, questions linger regarding the legality of policing the Keystone XL pipeline easement in this way.

The Common Sense Canadian

Critical discussion of key issues shaping our economy and environment.