parkland fall post 2007

1 the Post • A P A R K L A N D I N S T I T U T E P U B L I C A T I O N FALL 2007

the

PostA P U B L I C A T I O N O F T H E P A R K L A N D I N S T I T U T E

the

PostVolume X, N˚3,Fall 2007

INSIDE THE POST LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, page 3-4

ALBERTA’S BOOMA Calgary hot tub story, page 5Accesability isn’t a luxury, page 6Clubhouse offers safety and hope, page 7

ENVIRONMENTAlberta grizzly 101, page 8Alberta’s grizzlies, page 9Alberta”s quicksand, page 10

What’s next for Alberta?Life after the oil boom

LEE VAN WESTERBORG

See TILMA page 5

CANADAThe SPP’s propsects are iffy with leaders short on political capital, page 11

Our economy is too dependent on oil and gas; non-renewable resources. Th is province has failed to diversify its economy, mainly because of a “the oil will never run out” mentality. Th e massive growth of the construction industry in this province is merely a result of the oil revenue, not a factor independent of it, and when the oil fades, we’ll likely see a domino eff ect of a slowdown in the construction sector. The other hallmark of Alberta, the historically strong cattle sector, has been

hit hard by mad cow disease in recent years. But we are told we can always depend on our oil reserves to keep Albertans prosperous. Th e Conservative government sold us the line that there will always be high paying jobs in the new resource (oil) economy. In the last seven years, Canada has lost a total of 250,000 high paying jobs in the manufacturing sector, following the trend set by the US. Some of these factories had been operating in Canada for over 100 years.

We’ve been told not to worry, that these jobs would be replaced by higher paying jobs in the resource sector. Maybe – but will they be in Alberta? Many economists and industry analysts predict we have passed the peak of oil production and are now in a time of declining supply. North Americans are increasingly dependent on foreign oil, – while supply is decreasing, demand is increasing. Americans have a hunger for the world’s resources, and NAFTA allows the U.S.

unrestricted access to the resources of Canada and Mexico. Remember, Canadian resources are owned mostly by foreign corporations, who easily cut their losses and move on when the wells run dry and live far from the consequences. What will Albertans do when there’s no more oil to sell? In southern Alberta, the gap between the rhetoric of politicians and the media, and reality is most pronounced, as most skilled oil fi eld personnel have been laid off for over six months, with most insiders admitting workers aren’t needed until next year’s spring breakup. In this time period, oil production has been slowly moving from Alberta, with the exception of the tar sands, east into Saskatchewan. However, Saskatchewan has its own tar sands. Is this the foreshadowing of an economic downturn for Alberta? What will Albertans have if the oil stops fl owing? Could it be that our provincial and local governments have been trying to grow this province too fast, not realizing there will be a huge bust when the foreign owned corporations move on? Where is the so called “Alberta Advantage” if the oil stops fl owing?

Lee van Westerborg is a freelance writer whose writing has appeared in Adbusters magazine, the Sounds of Silence poetry compilation, and other publications. Check out his blog at http://judohobo.wordpress.com/.

Th e oil will be gone. Th at isn’t supposition — it’s fact.But what will happen to Alberta when the oil is gone?

The trouble with TILMA

STUART TREW

Canadians aren’t getting on board with trade agreement

Gordon Campbell is probably scratching his head. The Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) he signed with Ralph Klein in April 2006 was supposed to be a hit. It didn’t matter

that neither premier consulted with their electorates or even their respective legislatures before inking the deal, which drastically changes the economic landscape in British Columbia and Alberta

by significantly reducing the scope of democratic governance and signifi cantly increasing the power of corporations. No, Campbell and Klein were men of action, or so they thought, and their mission to unshackle corporate Canada from the chains of provincial regulation was supposed to attract eager followers across the country. In fact, quite the opposite is happening. Saskatchewan and Manitoba are turning their backs on TILMA, and municipalities in Alberta and British Columbia are in full rebellion against the agreement’s enormous legal scope. More recently, despite heavy corporate and federal government lobbying to take

TILMA National, a premiers’ meeting in Moncton, New Brunswick,could only agree to study the possibility of adopting some of TILMA’s language into the Agreement on Internal Trade.Th at’s hardly the broad consensus Campbell was hoping for. So what happened? Well, what should have happened before Alberta and BC signed TILMA to begin with? People are actually reading the agreement, some premiers are discussing it with the public, and a consensus is slowly forming that the case for eliminating so-called inter-provincial trade barriers is just too weak, and the risk to democracy posed by TILMA much too high.


Post

Your comments are welcomed and may be submitted to: Parkland Institute, Faculty of Arts, University of Alberta 11045 Saskatchewan Drive, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E1 Phone: (780) 492-8558 Fax: (780) 492-8738 E-Mail address: [email protected] Visit our website at: www.ualberta.ca/parkland or contact the Coordinating Editor directly at: [email protected]

Canadian Publications Mail Agreement 40065264ISSN 1206-9515

contact us

the

Parkland Institute is an Alberta wide research network that examines issues of public policy. The Institute is based in the Faculty of Arts at the Universityof Alberta and its research network includes members from most of Alberta’s academic institutions and other organizations involved in public policy research. It operates within the established and distinctive tradition of Canadian political economy and is non-partisan. Parkland was founded in 1996 and its mandate is to:· Conduct research on economic,

social, cultural, and political issues facing Albertans and Canadians.

· Publish research and provide informed comment on current policy issues to the media and the public.

· Sponsor conferences and colloquia.

· Bring together the academic and non-academic communities.· Train graduate students.

Opinions expressed in this newspaper refl ect the views of the writer, and not necessarily those of the Parkland Institute. Readers are invited to submit letters and articles, which may be edited for style and length. Information on up coming events and conferences may also be submitted. The Parkland Post is organized and admininistered as an editorial collective.

Coordinating Editor: Caitlin CrawshawDirector: Gordon LaxerExecutive Director: Ricardo AcuñaResearch Director:Diana GibsonProgram/Admin Coordinator: Cheri HarrisAdministrative Assistant: Katia MichelDesign: Flavio Rojas

What is

the Parkland Institute?

Volume X, N˚3, Fall 2007

RICARDO ACUÑA

editorial

Parkland Research Update

DIANA GIBSON

Hitting the hot buttons on policy issues

Parkland had an incredibly productive spring and is looking forward to a busy fall.

The very popular Taming the Tempest report which was released in March was quickly followed up by

the equally popular report, the Spoils of the Boom: Incomes, profi ts, and poverty in Alberta.

Polls showing that the majority of Albertans feel that they themselves are not benefi ting from the

boom led the Parkland to join forces with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and undertake

research on the phenomenon.

This report confi rms that the average Albertan’s income has not gone up with the boom. While some

Canadians think it is raining gold coins in Alberta, family incomes for average Albertans only increased if

those families, already the hardest working in the nation, worked more hours. The report also confi rmed

that those in the lower income brackets or on a fi xed income are much worse off, highlighting the

homelessness numbers. Finally, the report sheds some light on where the money is going, exploring how

much is going to profi ts and how much is leaving the country to foreign corporations.

There was strong media and interest in both reports which kept all of the staff at Parkland hopping.

However, that was not all the research program was up to. Parkland also participated as an expert witness

in opposing the export of bitumen from Alberta in the proposed Keystone pipeline. Parkland also made

a submission to the provincial government’s royalties review. Both submissions can be downloaded from

our website www.ualberta.ca/parkland.

This fall, Parkland will keep with the tradition of addressing timely and controversial public policy issues

by conducting research on the issue of nuclear power. Parkland has also been participating in research on

greening the City’s fl eet of vehicles. Watch for both of these reports this fall.

Diana Gibson is the Parkland Institute’s researcher director.

Research driven by Albertans

If not now, when?It’s time to start moving toward justice and sustainability

In July, the Multi-Stakeholder Committee on Alberta’s Oil Sands delivered its final report and recommendations to the provincial government. This is the committee that was struck by the provincial government to gather feedback from Albertans about the future of the tar sands, the communities around the tar sands, and their impact on the province as a whole. The committee spent a full year holding public hearings around the province, bringing together “experts” for day-long symposia, and receiving and reviewing written submissions from local governments, businesses and corporations, NGOs and concerned Albertans. Although a great majority of the oral and written submissions received from the committee included calls for a signifi cant slowdown, or outright moratorium, on tar sands developments, higher royalties, hard caps on gree house gas emissions, and greater long-term investment of resource revenues, all of those items are listed in the committee’s fi nal report as “non-consensus” items, and as such are not explicitly stated recommendations. The non-consensus label does not mean that submissions to the committee were evenly split on the subject, but rather that the reps from the provincial government and from the corporate sector on the committee did not agree with the recommendations. In fact, on many of these issues there was near consensus among the submissions made to the committee.

Th e tone of the submissions made two things very clear: that the status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable; and that the path we are currently on will result in significant social, economic, environmental and health concerns in the very near future. Despite the fact that the government reps on the committee, and Premier Stelmach himself, refuse to accept this reality, there can be no question that a majority of Albertans understand the need for quick and signifi cant change. Although there is a growing consensus among Albertans, and people all over the world, that there is a need for change, there is much less consensus on how to bring that change about and what the end product looks like. Ideas like justice and sustainability are oft en tossed about and strongly supported, but rarely defi ned and explained. It is for this very reason that the Parkland Institute has decided to focus its upcoming fall conference to a discussion of some of these ideas. Th e conference, entitled “From Crisis to Hope: Building Just and Sustainable Communities,” will take place from Nov. 16 -18 at the University of Alberta. The conference, which will look at community in the broadest possible context, will reinforce why we need to make a transition toward justice and sustainability, discuss what steps we need to take today to begin making that transition, and explore what exactly just

and sustainable communities look like. Some of the speakers already confi rmed for the conference include Patrick Bond, a political economist based at the University of KwaZulu-Natal School of Development Studies in Durban, Richard Heinberg, one of the world’s foremost peak-oil educators, former National Farmers Union president Nettie Wiebe, and numerous other thinkers, writers and activists from around the world. As you read through this issue of the Post, consider the current state of our communities, and think about all that our communities could be. Bring those ideas with you to our fall conference, and let us begin in earnest the work of starting to move in a new direction. As with most major changes and transitions, it is not likely that government will take the lead on this transition. It is incumbent, therefore, upon Albertans to get us moving in the right direction. Albertans have identifi ed the need for change, and have expressed a keen interest in building just and sustainable communities. What is left now is for us to start discussing what exactly that looks like, and to begin making the changes that will actually get us there. Th e longer we wait, the more diffi cult it will be.

Ricardo Acuña is the Executive Director of Parkland Institute.


letters to the editor

continued on next page

Exxon Mobil is not mentioned anywhere in the fi nancial reports of its 70 per cent-owned Canadian subsidiary Imperial Oil. You have to go to the parent company records to get the truth. Royalties aren’t there either. Royalties are not a tax. Th ey are a payment for the resource. Authors get paid a royalty from the fi rst book sold.

Citizens of Alaska pay no income tax at all. Albertans might be “tax-free” if the resources of this province were administered properly. I checked the annual reports of both fi rms and Imperial oil gets a higher rate of net income on its revenue in earnings than do its parent companies.

Albertans are being taken advantage of by Imperial Oil. But we deserve a bigger share, and are entitled to know what kind of royalties are being paid.

Other companies are more explicit. Nexen gives the amount of its royalty payments in the netback section. I calculate the percentages at about 14 per cent. Canadian Oil Sands fi nancial statements have always been clearer on what the Alberta government gets from the Syncrude than the operator.

I suspect that the biggest oil company in the world has put pressure on its partners not to reveal how small a share the people of Alberta are getting from this resource.

Bill DalyEdmonton, AB

Imperial Oil should disclose information about royalties

Does Prime Minister Harper really think that Canadians will believe him when he says that the Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting at Montebello was about mundane issues like standardizing the quality of jelly beans?

It’s not jellybeans that Canadians are worried about. It is the reality that important decisions aff ecting energy security, water exports, environment, foreign policy, food, health, labour, and safety standards, and other issues that could put Canada at a disadvantage and impinge on its sovereignty, are being made surreptitiously, without public and parliamentary debate.

If the issues discussed by the leaders are so innocent, why all the secrecy? Why all the security? Why couldn’t they be dealt with through the democratic process?

Big business, represented by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), was not barred from the meeting. In a paper made public in April 2004, entitled “New Frontiers” the CCCE proposed a North American partnership based on fi ve objectives. Th e fi rst was “reinventing borders.” Also included were: “forging new institutions to improve management of the relationship; enhancing energy and resource security; maximizing regulatory effi ciencies; and strengthening the defence and security alliance.”

Th ese objectives can easily be interpreted to mean Canadian sovereignty will be seriously aff ected. One has to wonder whether Canada is being governed by parliament, or by the CCCE?

William DascavichEdmonton, Alberta

Canadians care about more than jellybeans

Th e third annual Farm Worker Day was a subdued aff air, in stark contrast to one year ago.

Last year we were joined by the Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL), three MLAs and members of the public. We received greetings from the Governor General and provincial Agriculture Minister Doug Horner.

In the year since, the AFL seems to have lost interest in the plight of Farmworkers and that of the family of Kevan Chandler, who died aft er falling into a silo at the feedlot where he worked. Without the obvious power of the AFL, the Farmworkers Union of Alberta (FUA) has been unable to eff ect any change.

Our premier has been instructed by the powerful well-funded business group Canadian Federation of Independant Business, not to include ag-workers in any labour legislation, including Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) protection, in a letter to him dated July 10, 2007, and obtained by the FUA.

Few show up to Farm Worker Day


letters to the editor

Premier Stelmach dutifully advised the FUA in a letter dated July 20 that due to “the unique nature” of the industry his government will not move to include ag-workers in labour legislation or protect them under OHS and WCB regulations. His health and labour ministers followed suit with letters that echoed the premier’s postion.

Th e battle over farm worker rights has been described as a clash of the Federations. Th e labour federation demanded the ag industry be included in labour legislation, and the business federation said do not include the ag industry in labour legislation.

In the ensuing thrust and parry between these two divergent entities it would appear that even with the power of the constitution of Canada on its side, the labour federation is no match for the avarice power of the business federation. Perhaps the AFL position is one of “pick your battles” rather than disinterest. We at the FUA remain undaunted. We have our fi ve fl at rocks, all we need is the sling.

As one door is closed, another opens. We have engaged Amnesty International in our quest, and we are in correspondance with the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and their offi ce of peace, justice and missions.

It is progress still, but slow, painful progress. Th e pain is manifested in the lives of farmworkers like the 16-year-old I visited recently. He was working full time on a potato farm. Th is young fellow was severely injured last week when his arm became entangled in machinery at work. His co-worker heard his cry and was able to stop the machine just before his arm was ripped off .

It was very disheartening for me to see the boy with his arm all torn up, swollen and discoloured. Now, without WCB he can only hope he heals up ok, so that he can get back to work.

I have known this young fellow since he was about 10 years old.He is the son of a farmworker and I could see he was destined to become a farmworker. Th is boy and his family are the quintessential example of why we need reform. I have as my goal, to eff ect change that would prevent this young man from being exploited as his father is. So far I have fallen short.

Eric MusekampBow Island, AB

The Disconnect Between Compassion and Action by Lindsay Scott (the Post, Spring 2007)

continued from previous page

While, sadly, this message is an essentially intellectual one dealing with an item that requires heart it re-enforces my defi nition of ALBERTA — Always Lethargic Because Easy Riches Teach Apathy. Little if any attention is given to those who are falling behind because of the increasing richness of many to the point that the large number of people are totally focused on the fi nancial income aspect of life.

Th e report released this summer on the population percentages of Canada and the diminishing child population is an entry point into the problem. Likewise Stelmach’s constant and consistent statements supporting the economy over the atmosphere will ensure Alberta’s commitment to the already overloaded problem of poverty in the province. Of course, any major attempt by politicians to properly correct the situation would likely mean their demise. Th e previous Alberta leadership was not so diff erent in that they proposed to take over disputes on First Nation lands between the rightful owners and contractors and make the decisions themselves, i.e. government decisions. Fortunately this was rewritten to support the rights and responsibilities of First Nations. Now, despite the relatively large number of similar people not working when they could, for whatever reasons, labour is imported and, with it, real estate price increases as all seek to grab their ‘share’ of the wealth.

No one in Alberta that I know of can claim any responsibility for the oil that is here. Likewise, I know of no way in which they participate in setting the world demand for oil, nor do they have any direct involvement in the world price but they do gain the fi nancial benefi ts of these.

Years ago, schools took over much of the ‘baby sitting’ of young people, especially those who previously would have been sent home for misbehaving, but with an increasing number of mothers working, the schools became forced to set up in-school watch over these misbehaving young people. Likewise, we see in Edmonton and other cities the eff ects of increasing crime rates among younger off enders and the solution — add more police. Th ey can only participate when the family has failed in their responsibilities. I would suggest that a more practical way would be to return to the ancient practice of having parents of off ending young people attend the trials. Consequences should properly match failed responsibilities. Today we are far removed from the straight and narrow, and the ultimate prospects I suggest are quite terrifying.

Gilmour SmithValleyview, AB


alberta’s boom

TILMA from page 1

TILMA is a legal document that puts constraints on legitimate government action in order to discourage new (and eliminate old) policies and regulations that serve to “restrict or impair” the free fl ow of trade or investment. It does this by allowing corporations and individuals to challenge, in front of an unelected trade panel, any provincial or municipal measure that they feel hurts their profi ts. Since most government regulation is about balancing the profi t motive against the pubic good, any regulation can be seen as somehow hurting someone’s profits. Th at makes TILMA a kind of corporate bill of rights that turns governance on its head. Under TILMA, it is no longer up to corporations to prove they are not harming the public. It is up to the public government to prove it is not harming profi ts. Examples of government measures that can be challenged under TILMA include land use regulations (which restrict real estate investments), local zoning bylaws to prevent urban sprawl, green space requirements for housing

developments, building height restrictions and junk food bans in schools. All of these policies in some way aff ect profi ts. There is a small list of so-called “legitimate” objectives (including measures related to water, aboriginal people, energy, forestry and mining) but these are to be reviewed annually, “with a view to reducing their scope.” Health and education are not out of TILMA’s reach, putting even public health care at risk. Aft er all, a ban on private clinics operates to “restrict or impair” investment. Also, measures aimed at achieving certain legitimate objectives can be quashed if the government cannot prove to a TILMA dispute panel that its measures are the least restrictive imaginable—an almost impossible task. To add insult to injury, TILMA was signed under false pretences, based on the results of a single Conference Board of Canada study that claims the agreement will save BC $5-billion a year and create almost 80,000 jobs. According to a report from economists

Marc Lee and Erin Weir, the projected benefits from TILMA are “implausibly large” and based on a tiny survey of BC businesses—only four of the 13 polled returned surveys—and government ministries. “The scoring of estimated benefits is completely arbitrary,” the economists write. “No literature, data, interviews with companies, or lists of alleged barriers are presented.” Aft er adding up these arbitrary fi gures, the conference board then accidentally doubled its final estimate of TILMA’s benefi ts. “Even aft er correcting this error,” write Lee and Weir, “most of the projected benefi ts are from industries exempt from the agreement or from industries that barely engage in inter-provincial trade.” The prov inc ia l gover nment in Saskatchewan, which recently wrapped up a public consultation on inter-provincial trade that focused on TILMA, has refused to sign on to the agreement precisely because it wasn’t convinced by the weak arguments from supporters of the deal. Saskatchewan’s Government Relations

Minister Harry Van Mulligen also said TILMA’s “shock therapy” approach to trade barriers was unhelpful and that the province couldn’t aff ord to be sued every time a corporation felt some rule or another was hurting profi ts. Saskatchewan’s rejection was clearly felt at the recent Council of the Federation meeting where Campbell’s TILMA sales pitch fell on mostly deaf ears. Hopefully it will also resonate in Alberta and BC, where the municipal struggle against TILMA continues to build, despite the undemocratic dreams of “men of action.”

Stuart Trew is a communications administrator and researcher with the Council of Canadians, an Ottawa-based Canada-wide advocacy group that works to promote Canadian independence by supporting progressive policies on fair trade, clean water, energy security, public health care and other issues of social and economic concern.

Th e other day I had to return a few items bought at Home Depot and was reminded of how the boom is aff ecting Calgarians. Arriving at the store, I was pleased to fi nd the return desk was near the entrance without the usual line-ups. Th e return clerk listened to my explanation and agreed to the return of one inexpensive piece of hardware but questioned the return of a book about kitchen and bathroom renovations due to a store policy. A man standing behind me, next in line, became impatient at what was going to delay him and tapped me on the shoulder with his wallet in hand and off erred to buy the questionable $16 book from me so he could speed things up. It took me a second to realize what was happening, looked at this much larger man in the eye and took him to task for his rudeness. “You want to get ahead of me? Go right ahead,” I said, stepping back. The clerk was aghast at what was

unfolding and immediately began executing my refund. The impatient customer blanched, apologizing if he had off ended me. “You didn’t off end me, you just off ended yourself,” I said. I questioned in my mind what was happening to ordinary Calgarians as a result of the tar sands boom, my home since 1959. At the same time, my antagonist acknowledged he was wrong for his actions. I left the store muttering to myself. Th e incident was another example of Calgarians’ impatience and tendency to throw money around, like it’ll never run out. It’s part of a myriad of social consequences related to the boom. Wanting to get this unpleasant experience out of my system, I decided to go for a swimming workout at a community pool I frequent. Aft er fi nishing my 30 minutes of exercise, I jumped into the hot tub for further relaxation. To my surprise there were already two retired petroleum geologists in the tub who were old friends and colleagues I hadn’t seen in ages. “What’s new, Jack?” one of them asked, knowing full well of my long-term involvement in environmental geology activism about oilpatch responsibilities in global warming, tar sands and other important environmental issues. I smiled and asked them this simple question: “If it were up to you guys, would you build a nuclear power plant on top of the Peace River Arch?” “Of course not,” was their immediate response, because as all geologists know, the important geologic region called the Peace River Arch is the dominant structural feature in the entire Western

Canada Sedimentary Basin with an active history of periodic, major faulting and earthquake episodes since Precambrian times. I reminded them that recent earthquakes had also occurred as a direct result of waterflooding of several oilfields near Fort St. John as well as waterfl ooding of an oilfi eld near Lesser Slave Lake, both areas being geologically part of the the Peace River Arch. I also reminded them that this latter, 1970 human-induced seismic magnitude 5.1 event was the largest earthquake ever recorded in Alberta. Aft er a relatively quiet period of time, the Peace River Arch history of episodic seismicity has been awakened by the oilpatch with the potential for more manmade earthquakes to follow as a result of massive in situ steam injection operations in the nearby Peace River Oil Sands agreement areas. In other words, building a nuclear power plant on the Peace River Arch on top of mapped major fault trends published by the Alberta Research Council and the Alberta Geological Survey in 1994, would be a monumental scientifi c blunder. Aft er explaining what the good folks in the Peace River Country are currently doing to stop this nuclear nightmare from happening to them, including recent encouraging media coverage, one of my friends grabbed my shoulders. He pleaded with me to tell him when more of this media coverage was coming up to be watched, listened or read so his wife could better understand the contoversy over the planned nuclear plant to be built just west of the Town of Peace River. I further asked how we, as petroleum geologists who understand these issues more than others, could do a better job of explaining basic facts about the earth

to the average person so these and other important political issues would become more transparent.Th eir hands turned up as shoulders were shrugged. Most petroleum geologists have serious communication challenges with the public about these contentious issues. A thought immediately came to mind about why I didn’t have in my gym bag important fact sheets as handouts about the problems and dangers of nuclear power plants to give to my old colleagues and friends right then. Th ese fact sheets contain basic information published by Citizens Advocating Use of Sustainable Energy (CAUSE), a Calgary citizen’s advocacy group I joined earlier this year to educate the public about the many problems associated with nuclear energy. Our work had become more recently focused on the foolishly conceived plan to build a nuclear power plant in Alberta by the Energy Alberta Corporation and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. in the Peace Country. I will remind myself the next time I go to the community center, CAUSE fact sheets will be with me available for my petroleum geology friends and many others I will meet. While the issues are big, it’s my view that a little knowledge goes a long way.

Jack Century holds an M.S in geology from the University of Illinois. He began his career as a geophysicist and then switched to exploration geology working various western US petroleum basins. Jack moved to Calgary to explore the Devonian Reefs with Amoco Canada, eventually leading Amoco’s Geological Technical Group. In the early 1970’s he started up his own consulting company. Jack is an emeritus member of the CSPG, the founding Chair of the CSPG Environmental Geology Division and a Life Member of APEGGA

A Calgary hot tub storyRefl ecting on the boom

JACK CENTURY


alberta’s boom

Aff ordable housing has been in the news so oft en lately that I almost hesitate to address it here for fear of causing readers to reach compassion overload. The need for more rental properties within the fi nancial reach of more people is unquestioned — but there’s one group of people who are oft en left out of the equation. People with disabilities are oft en caught in a position of having to choose the lesser of two evils: an aff ordable home with less attention to accessibility or an accessible home that costs well more than the 30 per cent of the income fi gure oft en used in defi ning aff ordable housing. Th is is an unacceptable choice when searching for a place to call home in a rental market as tight as the one we’re now experiencing here in Alberta due to the so-called “boom.” I learned about this diffi culty the hard way back in the late winter/early spring. Th e week before Christmas, we were served with a notice to be out of our apartment in three months. Th is was a great shock as the person who bought our suite in the condo conversion had promised us just a few weeks earlier that we could remain as tenants. He claimed that to get the mortgage, the bank had required him to live in the suite.

Normally, we would have taken the news more calmly and as a chance to change our scenery, but we knew that we were losing a place that would be hard to replace because our building actually had an elevator. I have a mobility disability, so stairs are diffi cult for me. I’ve never lived anywhere that I couldn’t use an elevator if I wasn’t on the main fl oor. It was minimally accessible, as the wheelchair I sometimes use could only be opened in the hall because the suite was so small, but it was “good enough.” As long as we could accept that our friends who use wheelchairs couldn’t visit us in our home, it was “good enough.” Th e search was problematic at best. If we found an ad for a place that met our price needs, one of three things usually happened: no one returned our call, the apartment was already rented when we called, or (as happened to us once) it was rented before we were able to see it. Finally, about a month before we were to be out, we found a place that seemed almost perfect. It was larger than the apartment we were leaving, reasonably priced, and the landlord was willing to accept a refundable pet deposit for our three cats (another point against us). You ask what the catch was? We now live on the third fl oor of a three-fl oor walk-up.

I drag myself up and down the stairs several times each day, and my partner (who also has physical problems) does the same. I ask myself how long we will be able to face those stairs. I pray that it’s at least until all the voices pleading for aff ordable, accessible housing are heard by any level of government that can do something to help people who simply want to live in a home that meets their needs. Able-bodied people take stairs to help their hearts and improve their health, but those less able need a place that we can enter and leave freely without being dependent on someone else or so fatigued and in pain that each step is a struggle.

Accessibility isn’t a luxuryAlberta’s saturated housing market isn’t meeting the needs of Albertans with mobility disabilities

LANA PHILLIPS

At the very least, we need homes with a minimum level of accessibility and visitability. Having your friends over for a party is another privilege many take for granted. Two of our best friends are in wheelchairs and have never been able to visit us. My story is only one of many, many others. Th e Edmonton Social Planning Council and the John Humphrey Centre (also in Edmonton) have given people a chance to tell their stories, and people living with physical and emotional struggles who are trying to function to the best of their abilities are getting lost in the shuffle. People with disabilities aren’t the ones who make the headlines and invite sympathy, but they don’t want or need your sympathy. Th ey want and need compassion joined with action. People with disabilities need aff ordable, accessible housing, and they need it now.

Lana Phillips advocates for disability issues through the Board of Directors of the Spina Bifi da and Hydrocephalus Association, the City of Edmonton’s Advisory Board on Services for Persons with Disabilities, and her new job with SKILLS Society. She hopes people will listen.

People with disabilities are often caught in a position

of having to choose the lesser of two evils: an

affordable home with less attention to accessibility

or an accessible home that costs well more than

the 30 per cent of the income fi gure often used in defi ning affordable housing.

CrIsis H pe

From

toBuilding Just and Sustainable Communities

November 16-18, 2007University of Alberta Campus, in Edmonton

Parkland's 11th Annual Fall Conference

Visit our website at www.ualberta.ca/parkland for up to date details and to download the conference registration form or for more information email [email protected] or call (780) 492-8558

A conference about consuming less and valuing people more.

How do we transition to a socially just, post-carbon society?

Keynote:

Patrick BondBorn in Northern Ireland and educated in the US, Patrick is an academic and activist based in Johannesburg since 1990. He has drafted policy papers for the ANC government but works most closely with social, environmental and labour movements. He is the Director of the Centre for Civil Society, University of Natal in Durban, South Africa. Patrick is author and co-editor of a number of books including Climate Change, Carbon Trading and Civil Society, 2007 and regular contributor to www.Zmag.org

Friday, November 167:30 pm – 9:30 pm The Horowitz Theatre, Students’ Union Building


those with mental health issues. “When the focus is on wellness, and not illness, it creates an environment of acceptance where creativity grows and flows,” she said. “Clubhouse is an egalitarian environment where people are valued. Th is is the cornerstone of mental health recovery.”

alberta’s boom

Clubhouse offers safety and hope

writers!

the Post is currently recruiting writers interested in the social, political and environmental issues affecting Albertans. Enthusiasm, not experience, is the only requirement.For more information, contact the Post’s coordinating editor at [email protected]

Within Calgary’s downtown, there is an organization doing wonders for the mentally ill, transforming their lives from despair to hope. Potential Place Clubhouse is a mental health organization dedicated to protecting the human rights of those with mental illness. Potential Place is part of a mental health revolution that’s restoring the dignity of the mentally ill to their rightful place in society. What is remarkable, is that it provides an atmosphere of recovery. Members can work, socialize and contribute to each other’s well-being. In more than 350 places worldwide, the Clubhouse model has proven to be highly successful. Th rough its programs, members lead healthier and more productive lives. As an individual af f l ic ted with schizophrenia, I became a member of Potential Place in 2002. My voluntary participation in their work-related activities has proven to be an important ingredient to my wellness. Taking part in the Clubhouse coff ee houses, dances and other social events nourishes my mental health. Th e Clubhouse has connected me to other organizations where I am actively involved, organizations such as the local Schizophrenia Society, Alexandra Writers Centre Society, Calgary Low Income Coalition and Vibrant Communities Calgary. My active involvement with the Clubhouse has led to a transformation in my life from a miserable individual with a mental disorder living in isolation during my earlier years to a mental health

advocate dedicated to the rights of the mentally ill. In 1995, the Schizophrenia Society of Alberta’s Calgary chapter initiated discussions to develop a clubhouse. Potential Place began in 1997, when the current executive director Gord Young was hired by the organization’s board. Young met with 10 members in the Knox United Church basement. One month later, they moved to the Rehabilitation Society’s building. A new facility for the Clubhouse was opened in 2000 at 1130-10 Ave. S.W., where it thrives today. Fountain House was the fi rst “clubhouse” opened in New York City in 1948. It was established as a community for people with histories of psychiatric illness. Th e International Centre for Clubhouse Development (ICCD) was established in 1994 with its location in New York City. Th e ICCD’s mission is to act as headquarters for the rapidly growing worldwide clubhouse federation. Governance of this body is diverse and international. In 2005, the ICCD was awarded special consultation status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. This is an important event for the worldwide clubhouse community, as it makes it the only international mental health organization to currently hold this status. The special consultat ion status designation recognizes that clubhouses are important to recovery from mental illness in many areas of the world and that the ICCD is a leader in extending the Clubhouse movement in many diff erent countries.

At the third Western Canadian Clubhouse Conference held in the picturesque city of Nanaimo in 2006, Joel Corcoran, Executive Director of the ICCD, stated that he believes clubhouses will have a greater role in improving the lives of those with mental illnesses. “Our goal in ten years is to triple the number of clubhouses around the world. What we are doing is human rights work for the mentally ill,” he said. “My challenge for you is for your Clubhouse to plan for your future. To change the future of your community, you have to plan for it. My challenge for you is to start a conversation about what your Clubhouse is really about.” On July 27, 2007, Harry Chase the Liberal MLA in Calgary Varsity (the riding that I reside in) visited Potential Place Clubhouse. I had the honour of taking him for a tour of the facilities and introducing him to staff and some members. In the cafeteria, Chase had a friendly and enjoyable discussion with Gord Young and I. In our conversation with Gord and I, Chase indicated that he is impressed with our organization. “It’s a safe environment,” said Bart Collie, a member of Potential Place who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia. “Potential Place brought meaning in my life, strong relationships, challenges and purpose. I like the staff because they are truly compassionate and they bring hope to me.” Stephanie Lovatt, a staff member at Potential Place, explained that the Clubhouse is a community of people working “shoulder-to-shoulder” to help

Calgary’s Potential Place Clubhouse is part of a thriving global movement offering a wellness-approach to mental illness

JAMAL ALI

Summer student Leigha Kozun is her second year of disability studies at Mount Royal College. She likes that the Clubhouse doesn’t run on a medical model but reintegrates members back into society. “I get to talk to members one-to-one about their life and their stories,” Kozun said. “It provides me the opportunity to relate to them at a human level. From talking to members, I really learn that the human spirit is a tough one and hard to break.” From 10 members to more than 700 members, Potential Place has grown phenomenally over the years. More vibrant years awaits this Shangri-La. Its spirit and magic continues.

“It’s a safe environment... Potential Place brought

meaning in my life, strong relationships, challenges and purpose. I like the

staff because they are truly compassionate and they

bring hope to me.”

Jamal Ali is a writer, researcher and mental health advocate residing in Calgary since 1967.


NIGEL DOUGLAS

environment

Perhaps it is time to take a step back and answer some of the questions that are oft en directed at the Alberta Wilderness Association (AWA) concerning Alberta’s grizzly bears. For instance: “Th e ESSC of the ESCC recommended to SRD that the grizzly should be designated as ‘threatened’ under Alberta’s WA.”

How many grizzly bears are there in Alberta?

Nobody knows for sure, but we have a better idea than we have ever had before. In 2007, aft er the fi rst three years of an in-depth fi ve-year survey, the population is now believed to be less than 500 bears. Th is compares to a 2002 population esti-mate of 1,000 bears; by 2004, this estimate had dropped to “less than 700” (Draft Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan). How much this represents an actual decline in grizzly numbers and how much it is just that we are getting better at counting them is un-clear. What is clear is that these numbers are not high enough.

But some people are saying they are seeing more bears than ever.

It is important in all land management decisions that we use the best available sci-entifi c information. In the past, the water has been muddied somewhat by anecdotal reports from people who say that they are now seeing more grizzlies than ever. But since we have opened up motorized access into grizzly bear habitat at a stupendous rate over the past four decades, it is hardly surprising that people are encountering more bears. Forty years ago, to get into many areas of grizzly habitat would have required several days of hard hiking. Now you can hop on an ATV and be there within an hour. Th is does not mean that there are more bears: just that our likeli-hood of seeing them is higher.

Are grizzly bears endangered?

Alberta government scientists recom-mended in 2002 (when the population was believed to be 1,000 individuals) that the grizzly should be listed as a “threatened” species. Five years on, with a population of less than 500, the government has still not adopted this recommendation, even

Alberta Grizzly 101The facts about grizzly bears

Grizzly bear issues in Alberta easily become mired in technical terms, complicated reports, and acronyms.

though new population estimates would warrant the grizzly being designated an “endangered” species (the next step up the ladder from “threatened”). Federally, the grizzly is listed as a species “of special concern.”

How many grizzly bears would be enough in Alberta?

It is estimated that in the 1800s there were as many as 6,000 grizzlies in Alberta. At the time they were mostly a prairie species. Clearly, it is unlikely that they will ever return to these numbers.

To fi nd a specifi c target for a viable griz-zly bear population in Alberta, one has to go back to the 1990 Provincial Manage-ment Plan for Grizzly Bears in Alberta, which confi dently recommended that “the provincial grizzly bear population will be increased to 1,000.” Th e 2004 Draft Grizzly Bear Management Plan was reluctant to use a hard population target.

Why should I care if grizzly bears disappear from Alberta?

Various economic arguments support the importance of grizzly bears in Alberta, but

then it is likely to also support populations of a number of other species. According to the 2000 Banff Park survey results, 95 per cent of respondents believe grizzly bears are essential to the balance of nature and 85 per cent believe that a healthy grizzly bear population is an indicator of a healthy ecosystem. Ultimately it comes to the question “What gives us the right to decide that griz-zly bears should be allowed to die out in Alberta?” Th e government folks are not sit-ting at their desks thinking, “How can we continue with our campaign to get rid of grizzlies?” But by failing to make changes that the government knows are necessary to sustain grizzly bear populations, it is in eff ect deciding that grizzly bears are not important enough to protect.

Aren’t Alberta’s grizzlies okay now that the hunt has been banned?

No. Th e spring grizzly bear hunt was sus-pended for three years, starting in 2006. AWA and other groups (including the Grizzly Bear Alliance and Defenders of Wildlife) argued for several years that the government should listen to its own scien-tists, who had been recommending since 2002 that the hunt should be suspended. Finally, the government decided to listen, in no small part because of the hundreds of Albertans who took the time to write or phone to express their disgust at the continuing hunt.

Th e World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List suggests that a population of 1,000 mature individuals would be listed as “vulnerable” and would therefore be “considered to be facing a high risk of ex-tinction in the wild.” It is worth noting that 1,000 “breeding individuals” would require a total population of around 2,000 bears (including young and non-breeders). But in the above scenario, the IUCN is talking about “populations,” and Alberta’s grizzly bears are not a “population” as such. Alberta grizzly bears can move south to the US, west into BC, or north into the Northwest Territories, although this movement is thought to be limited (and likely to become more so as disturbances continue). Some people have extended this train of thought to conclude that, as there are lots of grizzlies in B.C. and in northern Canada, then it doesn’t really matter if Alberta loses its grizzlies. But many Albertans would disagree!

these are not, and should not be, the central focus for campaigns to preserve grizzlies in the province. Advertisers love to use billboard posters of grizzly bears to attract tourists, and it has been shown many times that visitors to Alberta’s parks consider wildlife a primary reason for visiting (and therefore spending money). A 2000 survey in Banff National Park found that only 15 per cent of the respondents would visit the park without grizzly bears. But the contri-bution of grizzlies to Alberta’s economy is not the reason for protecting them. Th e grizzly bear is also oft en touted as an “umbrella species.” Grizzlies need a large and diverse range to supply all of their needs throughout the year. In Alberta, female grizzlies have home ranges of 152 to 2,932 square kilometres; males require 501 to 4,748 square kilometres (Draft Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan). It is possible to gen-eralize to some extent and to say that if an area has a healthy population of grizzlies,

One thing that environmental groups and hunters consistently agree on is that the hunt was not the cause of the grizzly’s troubles and that suspending the hunt was not going to solve these problems. Protect-ing grizzly bear habitat is the only thing that will help in the long term.

What needs to be done to protect Alberta’s grizzlies?

Habitat, habitat, habitat. If grizzlies don’t have secure habitat in which to go about their daily lives, they will die out: it’s as simple as that. Nobody knows why, but grizzlies are considerably more sensitive to human disturbance than black bears (maybe it is because we have already removed them from two-thirds of their historic range). Th e number one threat to grizzly bear habitat is access. Roads lead to dead grizzly bears, whether it is

The government folks are not sitting at their desks thinking, “How can we continue with our campaign to get rid of grizzlies?” But by failing to make changes that the government knows are necessary to sustain grizzly bear populations, it is in effect deciding that grizzly bears are not important enough to protect.

continued on next page


environment

Environmentalist Al Gore would make a great president

NIGEL DOUGLAS

The Parkland Institute needs volunteers from communities around Alberta. We are looking for: distribution, web page design, media listing, event organizing, promotions, fundraising and more!

To get involved call Cheri at (780) 492-8558 or email us at [email protected]

volunteers!

direct collisions, hunting (legal or illegal), or simply disturbance. Th e Draft Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan states that “human use of access (specifi cally, motorized vehicle routes) is one of the primary threats to grizzly bear persistence.” It points out that in the Alberta Central Rockies, 89 per cent of human-caused mortalities were within 500 metres of a road on provincial lands. Grizzlies need large areas of habitat with a wide variety of food sources to keep them going throughout the year. A grizzly is a huge animal, and it needs to eat almost continually in the fall if it is to build up the fat reserves to survive through the winter. If it is continually being disturbed, it will not be in top condition when it comes time to hibernate in the winter. Disturbance may not kill bears directly, but it can re-duce their chances of surviving the winter or of breeding successfully the following spring. Th e decision on whether or not to do anything to recover grizzly bears is a po-litical one. Th e provincial Recovery Team detailed what needed to be done in its 2004 Draft Recovery Plan. Th e Alberta govern-ment now has to: (a) decide that grizzlies are worth recovering and do what the recovery plan suggests or (b) decide that it would rather do nothing and that grizzlies can just take their chances. Th e three-year delay in implementing the draft plan sends its own messages.

Can we actually recover grizzlies in Alberta?

Yes. The Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Re-covery Plan led to the recovery of the grizzly population from an estimated 136 individuals when the grizzly was listed as “threatened” in 1975 to a current popula-tion of more than 600 animals. Habitat security was the most important factor in this recovery (the plan saw more than 1,000 km of roads closed). Th e Yellowstone plan showed that with suffi cient resources and political will, grizzlies can indeed be recovered.

What can I do to help?

If there is one lesson to be learned from the long drawn-out campaign to suspend the spring grizzly bear hunt, it is the fact that whatever the scientifi c evidence says, change will only come about as a result of large numbers of Albertans who care enough to have a say. Th e Grizzly Bear Recovery Team has shown what needs to be done to recover grizzlies: all that is missing now is the political will to do it. You can write to the following:

Honourable Ted MortonMinister, Sustainable Resource Development420 Legislature Building10800 – 97 Ave. Edmonton, AB T5K 2B6Phone: (780) 415-4815Email:[email protected] MLA: Find your MLA’s contact information at 310-0000 (toll-free).

Nigel Douglas is a conservation specialist with the Alberta Wilderness Association.

New government figures for Alberta’s beleaguered grizzly bears now peg the provincial population at fewer than 500 bears, considerably lower than previous estimates. Only five years ago, the population was believed to be around 1,000 bears, but even this was enough to warrant a recommendation by the government’s Endangered Species Conservation Committee to list grizzlies as a “threatened” species. Th e government has so far ignored that recommendation, but now even that fi gure of 1,000 seems to have been overly optimistic. It remains unclear how far this decline in numbers represents an actual decrease in the number of grizzly bears, and how much it is just that we are getting better at counting them. One of the recommendations of the 2004 draft Grizzly Bear Management Plan was to improve our knowledge of grizzly bears and their habitat. To implement this recommendation, in 2004 the Foothills Model Forest was contracted by the government to initiate a program of detailed DNA census work. Three years’ worth of studies have so far been completed, covering the north of Highway 3 in the Crowsnest Pass to Highway 16, west of Edmonton. So what happens next? Imagine a young grizzly bear struggling to make its way in the unprotected Bighorn wildlands. Does it help to the grizzly that a draft recovery plan has been written? No, not in itself it doesn’t. Does it help that grizzly that we are better at counting grizzly bears than we used to be? No, not really. Th ese are vital steps along the way towards the fi nal goal of protecting grizzly bear habitat, which is the only thing that will help Alberta’s grizzlies in the long run. But without this fi nal goal, they are a waste of time and money. Grizzlies need secure habitat. They need places where they can get away from people. Th e Draft Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan points out that, on provincial lands in Alberta, 89 per cent of human-caused mortalities were within 500 metres of a road; in the National Parks, this goes up to 100 per cent within 200 metres of a road or trail. It has been proven time and time again that roads lead to dead grizzly bears.

To give our grizzlies the chance to survive, Alberta must reduce the vast network of industrial roads, trails, and seismic lines that crisscross the landscape. If there is one ray of light in the shocking mismanagement of Alberta’s grizzly bears, it is the fact that we know that, with suffi cient will power and resources, they can be recovered. Th is is one of the lessons from the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, arguably the most successful species recovery program in North America. From an estimated population of 136 individuals when the grizzly was listed as “threatened” in 1975, the population is now believed to be more than 600 animals.

Alberta’s grizzliesGoing, going…

Alberta’s Disappearing Grizzlies

2002

Estimated population 1,000

bears. The Alberta government’s

Endangered Species Conservation

Committee recommends that

the grizzly be designated as

“threatened” under the provincial

Wildlife Act.

2004

Estimated population “less than

700 bears.” The Draft Grizzly Bear

Recovery Plan is submitted to The

Alberta government.

2007

Estimated population less than

500 bears. The data from three

years of genetic population

studies result in revised estimates.

Dr. Chris Servheen, a grizzly bear recovery coordinator with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, stresses that habitat security is the most important factor in grizzly recovery. “Motorized access compromises habitat security,” he adds. Th e Yellowstone plan certainly acted to protect key grizzly habitat — the plan saw more than 1,000 km of roads closed. Unfortunately, the Alberta government continues to show considerable reluctance to address this fundamental issue.

If, as he has already suggested, Premier Stelmach will not be putting the brakes on Alberta’s economic juggernaut any time soon, it seems that Alberta’s grizzly bears will continue to be the roadkill. He’s been speeding past those wildlife crossing signs, gas pedal slammed hard to the fl oor, and he doesn’t show any signs of letting up. If he just eases back on the gas, maybe Alberta’s grizzlies still have a chance. But he won’t do that until Albertans insist on it.

Nigel Douglas is a conservation specialist with the Alberta Wilderness Association.

Only fi ve years ago, the population was believed

to be around 1,000 bears, but even this was

enough to warrant a recommendation by the

government’s Endangered Species Conservation

Committee to list grizzlies as a “threatened” species.

continued from previous page


environment

GEETA SEHGAL

Th e tar sands are a dangerous and dirty source of energy, and the fallout from their development is spreading around the world. For years, tar sands have been grabbing headlines as a highly profi table business opportunity for major oil companies, but the money fl owing to shareholders and executives hasn’t materialized out of nowhere — profi ts are high because of a huge drain on Alberta’s natural and human resources. Supposedly shouldering the burden of growth, or paying the “price of prosperity,” the people of Alberta have suff ered from a damaged environment, and staggering social costs as a result of the tar sands. As tar sands development expands, people around the world will also suff er from its contributions to climate change. Because of the extraction process, and because of the scale of the projects, the exploitation of the tar sands has become an environmental nightmare aff ecting every part of the ecosystem. First of all, tar sands processing emits excessive amounts of greenhouse gases which cause global warming and climate change. Secondly, the tar sands rapidly deplete clean energy sources like natural gas. Th ird, huge amounts of water are used to extract the oil. Fourth, air and water in the area is polluted by tar sands activities – making people sick. Finally, thousands of hectares of boreal forest have already been destroyed, and a total of 4.3 million hectares may be cut down if projects proceed as planned. Th e oil that is being sought from the tar sands is literally stuck in tar and it is very diffi cult to get it out. Huge industrial machines are needed to dig the “mineable” tar sands out of the earth, and these burn a lot of fuel. As two tonnes of tar sands must be moved in order to create a single barrel of oil, this means that 35 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent is emitted, making tar sands oil is the most energy-intensive type of oil available.

Alberta’s quicksand

Tar sands development is causing increased rates of cancer, decreased water levels, loss of carbon sinks, and a plethora of

other health and environmental problems

If the tar sands are located deeper than 100 metres from the earth’s surface, they are extracted by a process called steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD), which creates even more emissions than mining: 55 kg of CO2 per single barrel of oil. In SAGD operations, steam is injected into the tar sands to make it fl ow, and then it is pumped to the surface.

hectares of valuable carbon sinks in the Boreal forest are removed. Th ese numbers are increasing: by 2011 it is expected that the tar sands will emit 80 million tonnes of CO2 emissions. In addition to burning fossil fuels to transport the tar sands, heating the water for the steam burns more non-renewable resources. For every barrel of tar sands oil

a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p o l l u t i o n a n d contamination from the tar sands. Tar sands operations emit nitrogen oxide, sulphur oxide, particulate matter and volatile organic compounds into the air, chemicals which have been linked to a range of respiratory diseases, and exposure to volatile organic compounds can cause cancer and brain damage. One of the largest tar sands companies produces 250,000 tonnes of toxic waste per day. Contaminated water is contained in tailings ponds at tar sands facilities, but since the incidence of cancer and diseases like lupus has been rising in downstream communities, and people have been coming across deformed fi sh and wildlife, there is a fear that toxic chemicals and heavy metals are being released into the Athabasca River. Mercury, napthenic acids, and petroleum byproducts like alkyl-substituted polyaromatic hydrocarbon are the most dangerous contaminants, and all are known to have serious eff ects on the environment and human health. For many Albertans, the loss of the wilderness in the boreal forest is one of the saddest parts of tar sands extraction. Referred to as “Death By A Thousand Cuts,” the destruction of the Boreal means that caribou, songbirds, and a range of other species will lose their habitats, and that Canada will lose its “lungs.” Th e amount of Boreal forest that could eventually be clearcut to make way for tar sands operations is a land area the size of the state of Florida. The potential for catastrophe with continued tar sands development is obvious, and much of the damage that has already been done is irreversible. It seems clear that the best solution for the environment, and the health of the people living within it, is to stop all tar sands development, and to focus on safe, clean sources of energy and the other sources of economic prosperity that Alberta has to enjoy.

Geeta Sehgal is a climate and energy campaign organizer in the Edmonton offi ce of Greenpeace Canada. She is a graduate of the University of Toronto and the University of Alberta. Most people understand the many

dangers of global warming and climate change: natural disasters like hurricanes and floods are already increasing, and changes in lake and river levels mean that food supplies are threatened. As the global climate crisis grows, the spread of diseases will increase, agricultural production will decline, and extreme weather incidents like floods and tornadoes will become common. In order to minimize climate change, we need to dramatically reduce the amount of fossil fuels we emit, and ensure that carbon sinks are protected. Unfortunately, by developing the Alberta tar sands, oil companies are doing precisely the opposite. Tar sands development is already the single largest contributor to the increase in climate change in Canada, as it accounts for 40 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year, and means that thousands of

produced using the SAGD method, 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas is burned. On a daily basis tar sands projects use enough natural gas to heat 3 million Canadian homes. On a yearly basis, tar sands projects are licensed to use twice as much water as the City of Calgary. Between two and five barrels of water are used to produce each barrel of oil. Water is used to “hydrotransport” mined tar sands, to create the steam for SAGD and upgrading processes, and for industrial needs like cleaning, pump operation and cooling systems. Ninety per cent of this water is so contaminated aft er use that it cannot be allowed back into the river system; as a result, communities living downstream from tar sands projects have noticed considerable decreases to water levels in Lake Athabasca and the Athabasca River. There are serious health concerns

THANK YOU!

Because of the extraction process, and because of the scale of the projects, the exploitation of the tar sands has become an environmental nightmare affecting every part of the ecosystem.

The Parkland Post is supported by the proceeds of a generous

endowment by the Woodsworth-

Irvine Socialist Fellowship


Parkland Institute Publications Order Form11045 Saskatchewan DriveEdmonton, Alberta T6G 2E1Phone: (780) 492-8558 Fax: (780) 492-8738

Title $ Quantity

BOOKSClear Answers: The Economics and Politics of For-Profi t Medicine $10 Shredding the Public Interest $5 The Bottom Line: The Truth Behind Private Health Insurance in Canada $10 The Return of the Trojan Horse $28.61 Trojan Horse Alberta and the Future of Canada $5

PARKLAND STUDIES - free upon request to sponsor members

Taming the Tempest: An Alternate Development Strategy for Alberta $10 A Time to Reap: Re-investing in Alberta’s Public Services $5 Advantage for Whom? $5 Alberta’s Good Enough Approach $5 Back to Hewers of Wood and Drawers of Water Energy, Trade and the Demise of Petrochemicals in Alberta $10 BC Advantage Lessons from AB on the De-regulation of the Electricity Industry $5Energy Free Trade & the Price We Paid $5 EPCOR: A Study of Ownership, Accountability and the Public Interest $5 Fiscal Surplus, Democratic Defi cit Budgeting and Government Finance in Alberta $5 From Rhetoric to Reality Protecting Whistleblowers in Alberta $5Fuelling Fortress America $10 Giving Away the Alberta Advantage $10Making it Work: Kyoto, Trade and Politics $8 Public Bodies, Private Parts Surgical Contracts and Confl icts of Interest at the Calgary Regional Health Authority $5 Public Remedies, Not Private Payments Quality Health Care in Alberta $5Reclaiming Medicare A response to the Mazankowski misdiagnosis $10 Sobering Result: The AB Liquor Retailing Industry Ten Years after Privatization $5 Toward an Energy Security Strategy for Canada A Discussion Paper $4 Trouble in Paradise? Citizen’s Views on Democracy in Alberta $10 Un-accountable: The Case of Highway Maintenance Privatization in AB. $5 Youth Crime and Justice in Alberta $5Spoils of the Boom $5Selling the Family Silver $10

G.S.T INCLUDED.

Name

Phone # Fax #

Address

City/Prov. Postal Code

Shipping $2.00/item TOTAL COST

canada

For fi ve years, critics have warned of a secretive process to integrate Canada and Mexico into a greater America. Call it the big idea, harmonization or annexation; call it the Waco SPP process. No matter. Most Canadians haven’t heard of it. Th e Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which was formally started in Waco, Texas, by the three “Amigo” governments of North America in March 2005, hasn’t registered with the public. But that is bound to change. Th e critics have a secret weapon they never knew they had — George W. Bush. Bringing one of the most unpopular presidents ever to Montebello QC on Aug 21, 2007, is bound to awaken Canadians to what’s afoot. Summit leaders issued bland words like prosperity, security, and a North American community. But that won’t cut it. Canadians, like Americans, suspect anything associated with Bush. When Canadians discover what’s in the SPP, they won’t like it. It was the same 20 years-ago. Canadians liked the idea of ‘free trade,’ but turned against the agreement when they learned it was really about corporate rights, unlimited U.S. access to Canadian energy, and a threat to Canadian sovereignty. Only a vote split on the contra side between Liberals (32 per cent) and NDP (20 per cent) enabled Mulroney’s pro free-trade Conservatives to win with a 43 per cent vote in the 1988 election. Veterans of the free trade battle, like Thomas D’Aquino, who leads the push for the SPP, don’t want to dance with public opinion again. So, they hold meetings behind closed doors, inviting only corporate executives, government ministers, and senior bureaucrats. No Joe publics, nor opponents. Th ey want to avoid alarming public opinion. Th e SPP’s key advisory body, the North American Competitiveness Council, has 30 CEOs from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Ron Covais, listed at the Lockheed

Martin Corporation as president, the Americas division, chairs the U.S. section of the Competitiveness Council. He told Maclean’s that, “we’ve decided not to recommend any things that would require legislative changes … because we won’t get anywhere.” The s trateg y i s to do the SPP surreptitiously, by regulatory changes and Cabinet decisions, all of them removed from the eyes of Canadians and parliamentarians. Avoid elections on it. Use harmless and boring messages to describe the many decisions, which when added up, would remove much of Canadian and Mexican sovereignty. But after Bush’s visit, Canadian SPP promoters will have to win a public campaign. It will be difficult. They are running out time. Bush has little political capital left , and only a year until the next presidential election. Harper’s minority government may not last that long. So, the SPP’s prospects are iff y. But, the negative eff ects of fi ve years of SPP mentality have been felt, not least on the consciousness of senior federal civil servants. Unlike most of the citizens they are paid to serve, they don’t think “Canadian” anymore. Th e SPP promises to send us further down a foolhardy path towards energy insecurity. Th e United States, Britain, Sweden and other countries are giving prominence to national “energy independence,” making plans to ensure “energy security” and connecting these to climate change policies. In contrast, Canadian bureaucrats are stuck in continentalist thinking. Th ey assume that Canada has unlimited oil and gas surpluses to export. How else can we explain why almost alone, Canada has no national energy plan, and is doing no studies on energy security for Eastern Canadians who now heavily rely on imports from OPEC countries for their oil? Th e Energy Supplies Allocation Board, set up in 1985 to determine mandatory allocation of energy in case of shortages, seems as if it’s not staff ed. Th e Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness was asked in a telephone inquiry about contingency plans for an international oil crisis that would cut oil to Eastern Canadians. Th e reply: we’ve never thought of it.

The SPP’s prospects are iffy with leaders short on political capital GORDON LAXER

Canadian bureaucrats are stuck in continentalist thinking, assuming that Canada has unlimited oil and gas surpluses to export

Continues on next page


Fall

2007

CrIsis H pe

From

toBuilding Just and Sustainable CommunitiesNovember 16-18, 2007University of Alberta Campus, in Edmonton

Parkland's 11th Annual Fall Conference

Conference topics: travel and communications, where we live, what we eat, how we spend our time, and how we govern ourselves.

This conference will bring together experts from Canada and beyond to inspire us to talk about the communities we want to build together.

Featuring:

Patrick Bond, Director of the Centre for Civil Society, University of Natal in Durban, South Africa

Visit our website at www.ualberta.ca/parkland for up to date details and to download the conference registration form or for more information email [email protected] or call (780) 492-8558

A conference about consuming less and valuing people more.

How do we transition to a socially just, post-carbon society?

It’s similar with the National Energy Board. Despite its mandate to “promote safety and security ... in the Canadian public interest,” it wrote me that “unfortunately, the NEB has not undertaken any studies on security of supply.” I asked the NEB if Canada is considering setting up a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, like 24 of 26 members of the International Energy Agency. Th ey replied that Canada was “exempted from establishing a reserve” because “Canada is a net exporting country whereas the other members are net importers.” Th at’s a reasonable assumption for Norway, which sensibly supplies its own citizens, before exporting surpluses. But Canada imports about 40 per cent of its oil, 850,000 barrels per day, to meet 90 per cent of Atlantic Canada’s and Quebec’s needs, and 40 per cent of Ontario’s. Western Canada can’t supply all of Eastern Canadian needs because NAFTA reserves Canadian oil for Americans’ security of supply. Canada now exports 63 per cent of our oil and 56 per cent of our natural gas. Th ose export shares are currently locked in by NAFTA’s proportionality clause, which requires us to not reduce recent export proportions. Mexico refused proportionality. Although we have more than enough oil to meet Canadians needs, Canada is the most exposed IEA member. Meanwhile, the U.S. is doubling its strategic petroleum reserve. Th e U.S. has a “national energy policy.” Th e Congressional House has a committee on “energy independence and global warming.” U.S. offi cials talk “national” energy policies to their own citizens and only switch terminology to “North American” when speaking with Canadians and Mexicans. Stephen Harper boasts that Canada is an “emerging energy superpower.” Hardly. Th rough the SPP, the U.S. hopes to extend its national energy policy to incorporate Canada even more tightly as its energy satellite, and to end Mexico’s history of energy independence, celebrated each year as a national holiday. Canadians must choose whether we wish to supply the most energy wasteful country on earth until our conventional oil and gas soon run out, or opt for independence, cut production and consumption, and lower carbon emissions. Aft er Montebello, Canadians will hopefully awaken to the SPP threat, and tell their political leaders to look aft er Canadians fi rst. If our governments don’t, who will ensure that easterners don’t “freeze in the dark” when looming international oil shortages strike? Gordon Laxer is a professor of political economy, director of the Parkland Institute at the University of Alberta and author of a forthcoming book, Freezing in the Dark: Oil Independence for Canada

Th is article fi rst appeared in the Hill Times on Aug.20,2007

SPP’s from previous page

Support the Parkland Institute:Become an ongoing, monthly sponsorDonate annuallyPut us in your will or insurance policyDistribute the Parkland Post Get the organizations you are involved with to become Parkland supportersUse our researchConvince others to be involvedTell others about our research and events

What does it take for Parkland to make a difference in Alberta politics?It takes solid, timely, relevant research. It takes regular communication with the media.It takes educating people so they can articulate (and press for) the change they want.It takes staff and resources to do it.

What would you give for a better Alberta?

Faculty of Arts, University of Alberta 11045 Saskatchewan Drive, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E1 Phone: (780) 492-8558 Fax: (780) 492-8738 E-Mail address: [email protected] our website at: www.ualberta.ca/parkland

parkland fall post 2007

Documents

foreign oil

oil revenue

oil fades

oil reserves

t i o n fall

n d i n s t i t u t

peak of oil production

new resource oil economy