The Council of Canadians - Winnipeg Chapter


view:  full / summary

Environmental Assessment Review Panel in Winnipeg

Posted by Winnipeg Chapter on November 17, 2016 at 5:00 PM Comments comments (0)

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change has established an Expert Panel to review federal environmental assessment processes under the current Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The Environmental Assessment review panel is traveling to centres across Canada to listen to members of the public present their concerns and information.

Each event includes an afternoon of short citizen presentations to the panel and an evening of less formal engagement. The Winnipeg sessions took place on Wednesday, November 15, and members of the Council of Canadians - Winnipeg Chapter (Doug Tingey and Dennis LeNeveu) participated in both the panel presentations and the evening dialogue.


Many of the presenters chose to include a written submission of their comments to the panel. Dennis LeNeveu’s complete presentation (see below) is available on the panel website along with submissions from a wide variety of citizens, government departments, and NGO’s from across the country.


Of special interest, Council of Canadians Water Campaigner Emma Lui and former ELA advocate Diane Orihel submitted their presentation "Environmental Assessment and Water Protection" to the Edmonton session of the panel.

We’ve included here a quick overview of the main points of Dennis’ message, in which he raises questions about the current environmental protection process in Canada and provides recommendations for improvement.

  • The proponent (TransCanada, in the case of Energy East) supplies the information for the EIS that focuses on new pipeline construction.
  • There is constant repetition of the false claim that oil spills are local, short term, low magnitude, reversible and easily remediated.
  • Suitability of Natural Gas pipeline and current route for oil (much of which will be sour and contain deadly toxic and corrosive H2S) is not considered.
  • Those accepted as “directly affected” Intervenors in the National Energy Board (NEB) review process often do not have the knowledge to analyze the complex processes involved, but are underfunded, and unable to access expert help.
  • The scope of assessment is too restricted, and excludes many carbon emitting and toxic processes connected with the project.
  • Toxic legacies (tailing impoundments and processing plants, abandoned oil and gas wells, mine tailings) are allowed to increase and accumulate with no remediation.
  • Sulphur stockpiles and wells are left to leak H2S, SO2, and acid, poisoning both air and water.
  • Captured regulator allows gas contamination of private landowners’ well water, leaving individuals with no recourse but to further deplete their personal assets fighting in the courts in pursuit of justice.
  • Researchers across the United States and Canada are repeatedly finding high levels of neonics and other residues from farm chemicals and pesticides, levels that exceed vital standards set to protect aquatic life.
  • Decisions are not made according to a national carbon budget consistent with global commitments to address climate change.


The  Council of Canadians Winnipeg Chapter will continue to advocate for excellent environmental regulations and open, transparent, public processes for establishing those regulations. We are currently preparing a letter of comment to submit to the NEB modernization review. This separate will "examine issues that are specific to the NEB"  and will focus on regulatory processes of the NEB. Please check back here for updates.

Contributor: Mary Robinson - Council of Canadians Winnipeg Chapter Chair


Presentation to the Expert Panel:
Review of CEAA Winnipeg, 16 November 2016 by D.M. LeNeveu

My experience includes participation in the 1996 national EA of the Canadian Concept for Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal under the Seaborn panel. The Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS) was prepared by Atomic Energy of Canada at arms length from the proponent, Ontario Hydro. The multi year independent supporting research underwent rigorous peer review including an international technical review panel. I am now an Intervenor for the Energy East pipeline project whose EA conducted by the NEB pales in comparison. I will raise questions about the current environmental protection process in Canada and provide recommendations for improvement.

In the Energy East project, the proponent supplies the information for the EIS that focuses on new pipeline construction. A mantra that oil spills are local, short term, low magnitude, reversible and easily remediated is repeated as has been done in previous pipeline assessments. Evidence to the contrary, such as from the National Academy of Sciences study on dilbit, and from the Kalamazoo River oil spill is omitted.1


The route for conversion, determined in 1958 for gas, is not considered for suitability to oil much of which will be sour and contain deadly toxic and corrosive H2S. The risk to the over forty year old converted oil line from explosion of the adjacent natural gas lines is not considered. A double walled pipeline with leak detection at designated collection points, as is required for underground refined petroleum piping is not considered.


Intervention in the Energy East Project rests mainly on those directly affected who do not normally have the knowledge to analyze the complex processes involved. Funding, coordination and expertise is inadequate to conduct proper studies. Scope and interpretation of the evidence presented is at the mercy of an NEB panel that has already been forced to resign for apprehension of bias. The entire process could be disregarded in final government approval.

Only the upstream process of marine shipping is assessed. Why are gathering pipelines necessary to deliver oil to the mainlines not assessed such as the Husky sour oil line containing up to 5000 ppm deadly toxic H2S gas? 2 The Husky oil spill contaminated about 500 kilometres of the North Saskatchewan River and incapacitated major drinking water supplies.

Why are other processes connected with the project such as extraction of oil and bitumen by fracking, strip mining, and thermal processes not assessed? Why is produced water injection, flaring of sour solution gas, field spreading of drill mud and disposal of waste from crude oil and bitumen extraction not assessed? Why are emissions from processors, upgraders, and refineries that have been implicated in heavy metal contamination, respiratory illness, cancer and foetal feminization not assessed? 3,4,5


Why did industry monitoring of the massive bitumen tailing impoundments in the Athabasca sands report that environmental releases were no more that naturally occurring? Independent studies by Schindler and others 6 have clearly shown toxic releases far above background can be traced directly to tailing impoundments and processing plants. Studies by Stephane McLachlan 7 from the University of Manitoba have shown these toxins are accumulating in the food chain.

Why are the toxic impoundments allowed to increase when no effective remediation has been demonstrated? The impoundments will likely be left as a massive toxic legacy to the taxpayers of Canada. Other toxic legacies allowed to accumulate include thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells and mine tailings such as from the abandoned Giant Mine in the Yukon.


Sulphur extracted from sour gas, sour oil and bitumen all over western Canada is accumulating in massive stockpiles or injected in the form of H2S gas often into old oil and gas wells with no EA.8, 9 Why should these stockpiles and wells be left to leak H2S, SO2, and acid, poisoning both air and water?

In 2008, an Alberta Environment survey found 17% of the water wells in the area of shallow coal bed methane extraction were contaminated with gas.10 Why was the gas deemed as naturally occurring, despite isotopic signatures consistent with coal bed methane and the presence of nitrogen gas compressed to fracture coal seams? One landowner, Jessica Ernst, whose well was gas free prior to coal bed methane is suing the gas operators and the Alberta regulator for well water contamination.11 Why should her personal assets be depleted by court costs through interminable hearings? No individual can stand against this conspiracy by industry, captured government regulators and courts to protect and encourage the oil and gas industry.

Why, according to the World Health Organization, is carcinogenic benzene from petroleum detected in 50–60% of potable water samples taken at 30 treatment facilities across Canada? 12

Why are farm chemicals and pesticides that are carcinogenic and hormone and endocrine disruptors allowed? Researchers across the United States and Canada are repeatedly finding high levels of neonics and other residues that exceed vital standards set to protect aquatic life.13

The EIS for the BC LNG project, prepared by the proponent, Pacific NorthWest owned by Malaysian Petronas, focussed only on the LNG plants. One condition of approval was a plant emission cap of 4.3 million annual tonnes of greenhouse gas. Upstream fugitive emissions from fracked wells, compressors, pipelines, sour gas plants, and CO2 in raw natural gas have been estimated to be up to 155 million annual tonnes of greenhouse gas by 2020, far more than the LNG plant emissions.14 Why were the adverse environmental effects of upstream processes not assessed?

A climate impact analysis by Environment and Climate Change Canada for the upstream emissions for the Enbridge line 3 replacement,15 was based on NEB forecasts of increasing global demand for oil. Why was the climate analysis not based on a national carbon budget consistent with global commitments? The combined upstream emissions from all the proposed pipeline expansion projects and the BC LNG project could not possibly meet a national carbon budget.

EA in Canada is clearly broken and biased toward industry.


Context and Conduct of Environmental Assessment

A permanent independent Federal Environmental Assessment Agency funded by proponents should be formed that conducts the EA based on cumulative effects of the entire project from extraction to usage and determines limiting terms and conditions. EA must be done by independent unbiased experts selected and managed by the federal assessment agency. Legacy projects approved by provincial licensing that were not subject to EA’s should be reviewed by the agency. The amendments passed by the Harper government should be repealed.


Public Involvement

Public input should be an integral part of the process.



Levels of government and government agencies such as NRCan, the NEB and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission should provide technical input where relevant.


Climate Change and International Obligations

A climate test should be completed first based on a national carbon budget consistent with international commitments. International trade agreements and economic effects should be considered but environmental protection should take precedent using the precautionary principle and the principle of as low as reasonably achievable.

Overarching Indigenous Considerations

Full and complete indigenous consultation and assessment of effects on traditional lands and the food chain, respecting all treaty rights should be completed under the direction of the agency.

Decision and Follow up

Final decision should rest with the Federal Government respecting all terms and conditions determined by the agency. Ongoing environmental monitoring of project effects should be conducted based on the recommendations from the agency.

Legal Challenges

Environmental lawsuits having merit as determined by the agency should proceed expeditiously with legal cost borne solely by the defendant.













8 -










Energy East Community Meeting at SNAC

Posted by Winnipeg Chapter on October 21, 2016 at 12:45 AM Comments comments (0)

Council of Canadians Winnipeg Chapter helped to organize an October 20 community meeting for St Norbert residents concerned about the TransCanada's Energy East (EE) pipeline.

The LaSalle River runs through St Norbert

The session was offered as a way for St Norbert Arts Centre (SNAC) to engage community members in preparation for the centre’s Intervenor work in the National Energy Board hearings on EE. It’s important for SNAC to understand how their community members see the pipeline, and to provide information on the process and on the pipeline itself.

Many in the area recall the 1996 explosion of a natural gas pipeline that destroyed a house 175 metres away. The explosion occurred where the pipeline crosses under the LaSalle River, and was in part due to the instability of the slope. There are still strong concerns over the safety of that pipeline, and residents want to know how the conversion from gas to dilbit will affect them.

Others are worried about the water supply. The pipeline travels near the Winnipeg aqueduct for 100 kilometres from Shoal Lake to St Anne, and poses a threat to Winnipeg’s drinking water. However, it also crosses the Red River as well as the LaSalle River, and a leak on either of these rivers would poison water that is regularly used for agriculture, fishing, and recreational activities.

Several people had questions on the need for the pipeline, leading to a discussion about transition from fossil fuels to sustainable energy. Some residents in the semi-rural area are already adding solar panels and windmills, and believe that if Canada put money into green energy development instead of fossil fuels, new pipelines would be completely unnecessary.

Others weren’t sure that the pipeline was expendable, but were opposed to the current route. They felt that the risk of a dilbit pipeline passing through or near their gardens and waterways would be far too great. No one at the meeting expressed satisfaction with the Energy East pipeline proposal.

A retired man spoke up when he heard that one of the presenters had walked through the swamp area where the pipeline and aqueduct run close together. He said that he’d worked on the pipeline when it was first built.

“I’ve worked there. You just walk and that swamp is moving 1 to 2 feet. When they were building, they lost 7 cats into the bog.”

Someone asked how it ever got built under those circumstances. “First of all, we riprapped as much as we could,” he said, “then we had to yoyo it in.”

The NEB hearings are on hold right now, after the three panel members had to recuse themselves because of bias. In the meantime, SNAC and other Intervenors are taking the extra time to more fully explore the concerns that first brought them to the table.

The Manitoba Intervenors are coming together to identify some common concerns. Aurora Farm, retired biophysicist Dennis LeNeveu, Falcon Trails Resort, and SNAC are working with environmental lawyer Doug Tingey, and the group is collaborating with other Intervenors here in Manitoba and across Canada. Both Dennis and Doug are Council of Canadians Winnipeg Chapter members, and other chapter members are helping to support this initiative.

Winnipeg Sun Article “Pipeline runs through it” By Jim Bender October 19, 2016

CBC News "Riverbank pipeline route may be unstable, St. Norbert advocates say" October 21, 2016

Winnipeg Free Press Article "Fear of Energy East pipeline runs high among project opponents at community meeting" October 20, 2016

Fighting Big Oil through the environmental review process

Posted by Winnipeg Chapter on September 17, 2016 at 1:25 PM Comments comments (0)

The review panel for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) announced the dates for public consultations which start Monday, September 19 (same day that Maude Barlow’s new book, Boiling Point, comes out!) and run through December.


There will be two types of in-person consultations: 1) 10 minute presentations to the panel during the day 2) evening public workshops that provide info and include discussion. You can also send comments online.


Council of Canadians are going to be using this opportunity to call for restoring and enhancing protections for the 99% of lakes and rivers that lost protections under the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) with Harper’s 2012 budget bills. We know that Big Oil is registered to lobby the Trudeau government to keep protections off and important we’re there to push back on the Trudeau government to restore and enhance them.


The link between the CEAA and the NWPA is that companies used to have to notify the federal government under the NWPA when they were building a pipeline, dam, transmission line, or other facility on, under, across or over a lake or river, which would often trigger an environmental assessment.

Harper created a list of 97 lakes, 62 rivers and 3 oceans so that only projects on these limited bodies of water need a permit under then NWPA and consequently an environmental assessment on impacts on navigable waters. Harper also changed exempted pipelines and transmission lines from review under the NWPA. So a project like Energy East, which crosses 2963 waterways, does not have to be assessed for its impact on navigable waters.


Council of Canadians Regional Office have put together a package to help participants. It's posted as a series of blogs on the Council of Canadians website and includes talking points and more detailed info. The first in the blog series is here.

If you are interested, please register soon as space is limited! The Winnipeg workshop and pannel session both take pace on November 16, 2016. You can register for the 1:00-5:00 PM panel session, the 6:30-10:00 PM public workshop, or both. 



Here’s a couple blogs for more info:


Will we see #realchange with Trudeau’s environmental assessment review?


Quill Plains (Wynyard) chapter demands restoration of the Navigable Waters Protection Act 



Op Ed: The Time is Now to Act on Greenhouse Gases

Posted by Winnipeg Chapter on June 16, 2016 at 8:55 AM Comments comments (0)

Climate change is changing our world in catastrophic ways. Clean energy becomes more accessible and more affordable every day, even without the enormous subsidies poured into fossil fuels. We must transition away from fossil fuels to clean, sustainable energy, and we have the opportunity to make that transition right now. 


One priority is to ensure the big decisions we are making today start us on the paths to the necessary transitions.”



The time is now to act on greenhouse gases


By: Robert Gibson and Byron Williams

Posted: 06/15/2016 4:00 AM


Sometimes, the question is not whether the right hand knows what the left hand is doing, but whether the two are even aware of each other’s existence.

Case in point: the federal government’s efforts to deal with climate change and oil pipelines.

One federal hand was at the Paris climate conference last December. It committed us to doing our part to keep global warming "well below" two degrees Celsius.

The other federal hand, meanwhile, is rolling toward approving a suite of projects that will greatly expand Canadian oil-pipeline capacity. And this second hand is paying no serious attention to how permitting expanded pipeline capacity can be reconciled with the commitment to climate change mitigation.

Our part in keeping global warming well below 2 C (the Paris commitment) entails very deep reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions attributable to human activities in Canada within the next few decades.

While the implications of this commitment have not yet been clarified in detailed analysis, they involve some tightening of the pre-Paris GHG-reduction target for relatively advantaged jurisdictions.

For countries such as Canada and EU members, the commonly recognized old target was an 80 per cent cut in GHG emissions by 2050 relative to 1990 levels. The Paris commitment means we need to achieve something approaching effective decarbonization of most of the Canadian economy by 2050 or shortly thereafter.

Meeting such a commitment is not merely a matter of converting from fossil fuels to non-fossil alternatives. It entails shifting to different revenue sources, job opportunities, transportation modes and infrastructure, home heating practices, and a host of other new arrangements, opportunities and interconnections — none of which will happen automatically or be quick and easy.

Ontario is starting down this path with its new five-year climate change action plan. But it is just a beginning and comes none too soon.

Canada has been delaying effective action to reduce GHG emissions for the past quarter-century. Despite official statements of concern and promises to cut our contributions to climate change, Canadian governments have allowed GHG emissions to rise significantly, and are now 20 per cent higher than they were in 1990. While there have been some positive shifts and advances in understanding and technologies, we now have more emissions to cut and 25 years less time to make a smooth(ish) transition before the worsening effects of climate change make everything much more difficult.

One priority is to ensure the big decisions we are making today start us on the paths to the necessary transitions.

Decisions on oil pipelines offer an obvious opening. Collectively, three of the main proposed pipeline projects — Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement, Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion and TransCanada’s Energy East — would expand Canadian oil pipeline throughput capacity by more than two million barrels per day. Upstream, the three projects would facilitate expansion of bitumen extraction from the oilsands. Downstream, they would deliver more oil to refineries and points of combustion.

Each of the pipelines would have a life expectancy well beyond the 2050 deadline for GHG-emission abatement. Together they would more deeply entrench fossil fuel use infrastructure and associated dependencies.

On the surface at least, approval of these projects would move us further from the path to meet climate change mitigation commitments at a time when we should already be well on the road of low pain, maximum opportunity transition.

In the current deliberations on the Line 3 and Trans Mountain proposals, however, the federal reviewers have not considered GHG abatement needs.

In each case, the reviewers have examined only the project’s possible contributions to upstream GHG emissions. The downstream effects of refining and burning the oil are ignored entirely.

The upstream effects analyses are further restricted to certain individual project effects. They avoid attention to indirect effects on pricing and production. And despite legislated requirements to assess cumulative effects, the reviews ignore the joint effects of approving two or more pipelines.

Most regrettably, the reviews consider only whether the individual projects would facilitate an increase in upstream GHG emissions. No attention is paid to implications for commitments to reduce GHG emissions.

In overlooking Canada’s GHG abatement commitments, the federal reviews of the Line 3 and Trans Mountain proposals cling to a world that no longer exists. They assume GHG emissions attributable to current levels of bitumen extraction, production and use are not an issue now and will not be an issue through the lives of the proposed projects.

What is missing is a serious assessment of whether and how approving the projects could be compatible with deep abatement of GHG emissions.

That is the central question to be addressed in a credible and responsible environmental assessment of these pipeline proposals. Open and rigorous attention to this question is also a fundamental test of whether the federal government’s Paris commitment is genuine.

Perhaps a new pipeline could be designed, supported by effective fiscal and regulatory tools covering upstream and downstream effects, and managed in a way that contributes to meeting Canada’s GHG abatement commitments. But the possibility and the means of achieving it are not obvious. They cannot be wished into existence.

The time has come to join hands. The federal climate hand needs to introduce itself to the federal pipeline review hand so the two can do some serious and highly visible work on aligning our assessments with our commitments.

Robert Gibson is a professor in the School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability at the University of Waterloo. Byron Williams is the director of the Public Interest Law Centre of Legal Aid Manitoba.

Original Free Press article


The Council of Canadians Winnipeg Chapter works closely with the PILC on energy and pipeline related issues. We are grateful for their expert contributions to our efforts.





Winnipeg: Energy East: Our Risk - Their Reward

Posted by Winnipeg Chapter on March 20, 2016 at 1:10 PM Comments comments (0)

On Wednesday March 16 over 150 people gathered at a town hall sponsored by the Council of Canadians and the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition to hear about the Energy East pipeline and what it means for Winnipeg.

Chickadee Richard welcomed everyone to Treaty One territory, and offered a prayer to open the gathering. Michael Matczuk spoke for the coalition, describing specific local issues and the ongoing campaigning of MEJC volunteers. He outlined the potential for slow, undetectable leaks spreading from the pipeline to seep into the aqueduct where the two follow a parallel route for 100 kilometres between Shoal Lake and Winnipeg. Matczuk explained the city’s legal obligation to provide and protect drinking water for the citizens of Winnipeg, and spelled out the reality that if the original pipeline had been for oil instead of gas, the route through the boggy area near the aqueduct would not have been approved. It would not even have been proposed.

Daryl Redsky shared his perspective as an indigenous man and a member of Shoal Lake 40 First Nation, pointing out that his community was never consulted, and never informed about the original, 40-year-old pipeline. “Now this pipeline...I’ve never had any conversation with anyone about it, It’s 10-12 kilometres from my house,” he said. “I’ve waited for someone to talk to me, waited for my phone to ring. I always tell industry, it’s my job to protect my people and my resources. Nobody has contacted me. I’m strongly opposed to having a pipeline in my backyard and I told the chief what my feelings are.” Redsky spoke movingly of his connection to the earth and the water that we all share, and referenced the unique connection that Winnipeg has to Shoal Lake 40. Winnipeg’s drinking water comes entirely from Shoal Lake through the aqueduct, but the First Nation itself has no access to safe drinking water. “Everyone in this room is 60-70% Shoal Lake,” he said wryly. “So you’re fighting for yourself.”

Andrea Harden-Donahue moderated the evening, sharing information throughout to clarify and give national context. She described the phenomenal effect that citizens’ action can have on seemingly unwinnable battles, showing slides of action at Cacouna Quebec, where people put an end to Transcanada’s plans to put a dilbit port in the middle of a Beluga habitat; and of the grassroots resistance at the eastern end of the pipeline where indigenous and non-indigenous communities are rising up in solid opposition to Energy East.

Maude Barlow, national chairperson of Council of Canadians, spoke on the many, many dangers of the proposed pipeline, dangers that affect local ecosystems, communities along the 4200 kms, the increasingly fragile environment we all share, and the global climate.

Barlow directly addressed the myth of the pipeline as a nation builder, and identified that myth as the false manipulation that it is. Maude drew applause with her reminder that the water belongs to us not to any corporation and we must protect it for our children; that we must not leave a legacy of poisoned water for our children.

“This notion that this is a great national project - that’s a lie. One spill, just one spill, it doesn’t matter where -- that will be the place that divide us. The great project that will bring us together is the protection of water as a public trust. That’s our job. You cannot have that and Energy East.”

A question and answer session at the end brought up some interesting and challenging questions, including one about the exact process that TransCanada will follow to convert the gas pipeline. The answer was not reassuring. They don’t pull it up and rebuild the decades old gas pipeline that was never intended to cope with the very different demands of tar sands bitumen. They do monitor for signs of corrosion and other problems. There are of course many proprietary aspects to TransCanada’s plans, and that means the information is not publicly available, Again, not reassuring.

The Winnipeg chapter is a member of the MEJC, and together, these grassroots organizations have been working hard to educate and inform citizens and government. Michael’s talk is on the MEJC blog, and video of the entire evening is included below.

You need Adobe Flash Player to view this content.

Contributor: Mary Robinson - Council of Canadians Winnipeg Chapter Chair

Energy East Pipeline in Manitoba: Avenues for Action

Posted by Winnipeg Chapter on March 1, 2016 at 11:35 PM Comments comments (0)

Next Manitoba Government Must Recommend Energy East Pipeline Reroute through NEB to Protect Winnipeg Water

WINNIPEG – With the writ drop days away, the next Government of Manitoba must be preparing now to protect Winnipeg’s water supply from the Energy East pipeline proposal, say the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition (MEJC) in their new report, “The Energy East Pipeline: Avenues for Government Action Outside the Broken NEB Process.” The report offers ways the provincial and municipal governments can protect Manitobans from the Energy East pipeline and offers as examples of decisions made by other provinces and municipalities in the context of Manitoba's unique concerns.

The Province of Manitoba under the NDP has not publicly mentioned the risks of the Energy East pipeline proposal to the Winnipeg water supply, even though the city has expressed its concerns.

"During this provincial election, the parties must recognize that the threat of the Energy East pipeline can't be ignored. Voters need to know where the parties stand," said Mary Robinson, chair of the Winnipeg Chapter of Council of Canadians, and the author of the report. "Manitobans deserve to know exactly what risks would result from the conversion of a natural gas line to a dilbit line running so close to the Winnipeg aqueduct."

Robinson says that the best way to make sure the public understand the risk is for Winnipeg and Manitoba to follow Quebec and Montreal's example and immediately implement a full public consultation process.

“I want to hear publicly from all provincial party leaders where they stand on this issue,” said Alex Paterson, spokesperson for MEJC. “We need to know how they will protect the Winnipeg water supply. Selinger for instance, needs to stop hiding behind the facade of a broken NEB process that he is using to avoid telling the public his position on the Energy East pipeline.”

In their new report, the coalition provide recommendations on how any political party, if they form government, can protect Winnipeg’s water supply.

“There are only two choices,” said Robinson. “Either the pipeline must be rejected altogether, or the governments of Manitoba and Winnipeg must require a complete re-route, away from the aqueduct, other drinking water sources, and the natural gas lines.”

“When a pipeline threatens the drinking water of over half the population of your province you’d think the person who wanted to be the next leader of that province would have a clear and unambiguous public position,” said Paterson. “To me, it is the absolute basic responsibility of a provincial politician to protect our drinking water. If they can’t do that, they don’t have what it takes to be a leader for Manitobans.”

The coalition’s research shows that the pipeline is a threat to the safety of the Winnipeg aqueduct, and to the drinking water of communities across Manitoba. The pipeline parallels the Winnipeg aqueduct for 100-kilometres between Shoal Lake and Winnipeg. A slow, undetectable leak (anything up to 2.63 million litres a day) in that section would leach toxic benzene into the swampy area around the cracked and porous aqueduct.

Map of area from Winnipeg to Shoal Lake showing the risk of aqueduct contamination

“You couldn’t put the pipeline in a worse place for the safety of the aqueduct,” says Doug Tingey, a lawyer and member of Council of Canadians – Winnipeg Chapter. “Where the groundwater drains north, the pipeline is south of the aqueduct; where the groundwater drains south, the pipeline is to the north.”

The coalition expressed frustration that such an issue of national importance is not being discussed openly in the province. The NDP, PCs, and Liberal Party have no declared position.

“The Energy East pipeline has been one of the most discussed issues nationally since Trudeau became PM, yet somehow there has been not a word publicly from any of the big three provincial political parties,” said Paterson. “You only avoid a national issue for one reason. It looks to me like they are scared to tell Manitobans their position on this project. That’s not leadership, that’s political cowardice.”

WATCH the Report Release:

You need Adobe Flash Player to view this content.

News Conference: How Governments Can Stop Energy East

Read our blog series No Energy East Pipeline

Two for Trudeau

Posted by Winnipeg Chapter on November 2, 2015 at 10:20 PM Comments comments (0)

This entry is a reposting from the Human Rights Hub Winnipeg blog in answer to the question "What are the top two human rights issues that Justin Trudeau needs to address?"

Council of Canadians – Winnipeg Chapter is engaged on many social justice issues through our members’ collaboration with other groups. Peace efforts, election reform, refugee support, trade justice, climate change, water protection, living wage – these are some of the issues that the new prime minister must address.

Currently, two campaigns are the primary focus for our chapter, both informed by our growing understanding of Treaties, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s recommendations. Freedom Road to Shoal Lake 40 First Nation became an active part of our work when we were invited to support the promotion of the community’s Museum of Canadian Human Rights Violations. Opposition to the Energy East pipeline – which would be the largest oil pipeline at 1.1 million barrels a day – grew out of our earlier involvement with International Stop the Tar Sands Day.

Construction of the Freedom Road will finally bring safe access and the possibility of clean water to the dislocated Shoal Lake 40 First Nation community. The lack of clean drinking water on First Nations reserves is a shameful symptom of the continued colonization and oppression of the First Peoples. This system will only change through honouring the Treaties and the findings of the TRC.

The Energy East pipeline is a destructive tar sands expansion project that will pour up to 32 million tonnes a year of climate-changing GHG emissions into the air, and put at risk the water, land and communities along its route. Council of Canadians – Winnipeg Chapter, as a member of the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition, is working to stop the pipeline, and to help bring Manitoba closer to a just, sustainable energy future.

We invite Justin Trudeau to respect the water, the land, and the people who live in this land by honouring the Treaties and fulfilling the TRC recommendations.

Check out the other blogs in this series:

Two for Trudeau: MARL

Two for Trudeau: IIWR

Two for Trudeau: Global College

Be sure to check the Human Rights Hub Winnipeg regularly. it's a central space for local activities and global issues.






Energy East Problem: Crossing Water

Posted by Winnipeg Chapter on July 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM Comments comments (1)


The Energy East pipeline crosses many rivers, drainage basins, and aquifers in Manitoba. Some of these are the sole drinking water supply for nearby communities or agricultural water sources, and some are First Nations’ traditional land, fragile ecosystems, fishing areas, and recreational spots. There are shut off valves every 30 kilometres and up to 25 million litres of oil present at any time between the valves. Even after the valves are closed, anything already in that section of pipeline will spill. The heavier bitumen will sink into the riverbed; the rest will either evaporate as toxic gasses or travel with the natural flow, poisoning miles of freshwater.

The pipeline crosses the Assiniboine River near Miniota, upstream of both Sioux Valley Dakota Nation and Brandon. Further east it crosses the Arrow River, Birdtail Creek, and Oak River, all upstream of the Kenton Reservoir and the Rivers Reservoir. The Kenton Reservoir supplies drinking water to Kenton and surrounding area, and the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, and the Rivers Reservoir is the source of drinking water for Rivers, Manitoba.

Between Brandon and Portage, the pipeline passes through the Assiniboine Delta Aquifer, and then crosses the Assiniboine for a second time, just south of Portage la Prairie. The city of Portage, Long Plain First Nation and Dakota Plains First Nation all rely on the Assiniboine for their drinking water; the 15 billion cubic meter Assiniboine Delta supplies water for livestock operations, farm and town wells, and an extensive irrigation system that supports Manitoba’s potato industry.

The pipeline crosses the LaSalle River twice: the first is upstream of the Sanford water treatment plant that services Starbuck. After cutting across several miles of drainage ditches that empty into the LaSalle, the pipeline reaches St. Norbert and its two vulnerable rivers, the LaSalle and the Red. The community still remembers the 1996 explosion where the pipeline crosses the Red River close to the floodway. The explosion was found to be caused by a crack in the pipeline combined with the movement of the slope in which the pipeline was buried. The resulting fire destroyed a family home situated 178 metres away from the leak.

On its way to Ontario, the pipeline crosses the Seine River upstream of St. Anne, the Whitemouth River about three kilometres upstream of Hadashville, the Brokenhead River close to Highway 1, and the Sandilands Aquifer. In the Whiteshell Provincial Park, the pipeline is near enough to Falcon Lake that a leak would pass quickly into the water, long before preventative measures could be put in place.

As part of Shoal Lake drainage basin, water from Falcon Lake eventually arrives in Shoal Lake itself, the source of Winnipeg’s drinking water and home to the First Nations Shoal Lake 40 and Iskatewizaagegan 39. Falcon Lake has several resorts and private cabins, and is part of Treaty 3 Territory. The Aquifer is home to the Sandilands Uplands, with its rich array of wetlands, bogs, marshes, peatlands and forests. It is also home to the headwaters of five watersheds.

A spill in any of these places could destroy the drinking water for the extended community, poison the air, and damage agriculture, recreation, fishing and First Nations land for several miles downstream.

There are many economic and environmental reasons to say NO to the pipeline. Sources and more information can be found in the recently released report, “Potential Impacts of the Energy East Pipeline On Winnipeg”.

Contributor: Mary Robinson - Council of Canadians Winnipeg Chapter Chair

Energy East Problem: Sulphur and Hydrogen Sulphide

Posted by Winnipeg Chapter on June 23, 2015 at 6:45 AM Comments comments (0)


Tar sands bitumen contains huge amounts of sulphur. The sulphur must be removed before the bitumen can eventually become refined oil, but there is a glut on the world market and nowhere to send it. Already the mounds of raw sulphur extracted from tar sands bitumen are larger than the pyramids of Egypt and there’s more of it produced every day.


One “solution” is to convert the sulphur to hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and inject it underground into old oil wells, a process referred to as acid gas disposal. Hydrogen sulphide is extremely toxic. One breath over 1000 ppm can kill instantly while lower concentrations can cause permanent health damage. Oil wells will weaken over time and allow the stored H2S to leak, with deadly effect. Zama Lake, Alberta is a disposal site with sulphur accumulations much smaller than the tar sands; a study found that if a leak occurred there, an area 600 kms in radius could be unlivable for over 1,000 years because of poisoned air and water. That’s equivalent to an area of land around Winnipeg reaching from Regina in the west, all the way east to Lake Nipigon, north to The Pas and south to Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

As the mountains of sulphur grow larger, another “solution” to the problem is to leave sulphur in the bitumen when it is mixed with the diluent for transport to refineries, so that sulphur disposal becomes someone else’s problem. Many scientists consider this poses an additional danger, because the relatively large amount of sulphur in the dilbit can form hydrogen sulphide inside the pipeline. Thermal decomposition (a chemical decomposition caused by heat) and microbes in the pipeline act on sulphur to form H2S. This increases the concentration of H2S as the dilbit moves down the line.There’s no data in the Energy East submission to indicate the maximum temperature of dilbit in the line, however the five natural gas lines parallel to the dilbit line have been reported to reach 50 C in the summer. The dilbit line would be even hotter due to the higher viscosity.

In some cases, H2S is present at point of entry in the tar sands . In Cold Lake, for instance, the hydrogen sulphide content of dilbit is reported to be 300 ppm. (Interestingly, Enbridge, in the United States, has put worker safety policies in place that ban a higher than 5 ppm H2S content in the oil transported through their pipelines.)

Sulphur and hydrogen sulphide are right there in the pipelines and trains carrying dilbit across farmers’ fields, aquifers, rivers and through our communities. Where there’s a pipeline leak, there will be hydrogen sulphide released; and where there is hydrogen sulphide there is significant risk to life and health for people, animals, air and water.

There are many economic and environmental reasons to say NO to the pipeline. Sources and more information can be found in the recently released report, “Potential Impacts of the Energy East Pipeline On Winnipeg.”



Contributor: Mary Robinson - Council of Canadians Winnipeg Chapter Chair

What is Dilbit?

Posted by Winnipeg Chapter on June 18, 2015 at 8:10 PM Comments comments (0)


The Energy East Pipeline will carry diluted bitumen (also called dilbit) and other crude oil products.

Bitumen is steamed or strip mined from the sandy tar sands soil in Alberta, and is too thick and sticky to flow through a pipeline. A toxic, volatile diluent must be added so that the bitumen can be shipped.

The bitumen contains sand, silt, heavy metals and other contaminants as well as sulphur. The sulphur portion of the bitumen is about five percent by weight, and can contribute to creating hydrogen sulphide in the pipeline.

Some of the contaminants, and all the sulphur, remain after processing with diluent to form dilbit.

The diluent constitutes up to 30% of the dilbit and comes from a variety of sources, with the most common being natural gas condensate. Pentane is a main constituent of the diluent (about 9%) but the exact composition depends on the sources used and it varies from batch to batch.

Christina dilbit blend is very common and includes several volatile, toxic, environmentally persistent components (POPs) such as benzene, a known carcinogen. POPs (or Persistent Organic Pollutants) resist normal breakdown and accumulate in organisms, with potential significant impacts on human health and the environment.

The proposed Energy East pipeline will repurpose an existing natural gas pipeline that was not designed to carry dilbit. Dilbit contains abrasive sediment that will erode the pipe. Dilbit also contains chloride salts and toxic hydrogen sulphide that are both highly corrosive. The pipeline itself is known to already have many small, continuous leaks. When it is carrying dilbit, those leaks could expose the public to deadly hydrogen sulphide.

The natural gas pipeline is not designed to accommodate the pressure surges associated with liquid (dilbit) service. The pressure surges could easily rupture the pipe.

There are many economic and environmental reasons to say NO to the pipeline. Sources and more information can be found in the recently released report, “Potential Impacts of the Energy East Pipeline On Winnipeg.”

Contributor: Mary Robinson - Council of Canadians Winnipeg Chapter Chair