Latest news with #BillC-48
Hamilton Spectator
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
Coastal First Nations call on Carney to uphold oil tanker ban
Indigenous leaders on British Columbia's north coast are calling on the federal government to hold out against pressure from Alberta and industry to reverse the west coast oil export ban. On Tuesday, the Coastal First Nations, a group of nine First Nations along the north and central coast of BC and Haida Gwaii, wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney. The group urged the government to uphold Bill C-48, known as the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. Since 2019, this law has prohibited tankers carrying over 12,500 metric tons of crude oil and other oil products from stopping or transferring cargo at any port between the northern tip of Vancouver Island and the Alaska border, which includes Haida Gwaii, the Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. The act formalizes protections that Indigenous communities and environmentalists have been seeking since the 1970s. It effectively bans crude oil supertankers from one of the world's most pristine cold-water marine ecosystems, home to whale habitats, wild salmon, seabirds and ancient rainforests. Exports through the Juan de Fuca Strait are allowed, meaning the ban has not interfered with the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. The controversy comes as Carney said in a recent statement that a new bitumen pipeline to BC's north coast is 'highly, highly likely.' His remark aligns with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and federal Conservative MPs push to lift the tanker ban. Smith has specifically called for faster federal approvals for pipeline projects and an exemption at the Port of Prince Rupert to allow oil exports to Asia. But Marilyn Slett, president of the Coastal First Nations and chief councillor of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council, said oil tankers are a 'non-starter' for her community. 'An oil tanker project is not something we can ever provide consent to,' she said. 'Our communities rely on healthy oceans and ecosystems for our livelihood and culture. Reversing or weakening this legislation would put everything our communities depend on at risk.' The tanker ban was instituted after more than a decade marked by energetic opposition to pipelines to the West Coast. The Northern Gateway pipeline, first proposed by Enbridge in 2002, was ultimately halted in 2016 after more than 130 First Nations publicly opposed the project and courts ruled that consultations had been inadequate. Slett called the decision a major win for Indigenous rights and protection of coastal areas, and said any new talks should not repeat old mistakes. Indigenous leaders have come out against crude oil tankers but have been more accepting of other types of ships, especially those carrying liquefied natural gas (LNG). By 2030, as many as 600 LNG vessels are expected to pass through their waters — activities accommodated through lengthy engagement and approval processes with communities, said Danielle Shaw, chief councillor of the Wuikinuxv Nation and a board member of the Central Coast Indigenous Resource Alliance. 'We're open to discussing projects that will be sustainable and responsible and can strengthen the economy of Canada and British Columbia,' Shaw said. 'But there's strong opposition to oil tankers on this coast because of the impacts it would have for our communities directly.' Slett noted that with 175 LNG tankers already passing through coastal channels this year and more expected, the impact on the ecosystem is significant. 'This is substantial, and those have cumulative effects on the ecosystem. They are in place and serving as projects for British Columbia and other communities. This [oil tankers] is something we cannot add … it's not something we would support.' The risks from oil spills are considered too great. 'When it comes to allowing oil tankers on our coast, it wouldn't be if something were to happen, it would be when something happens,' Shaw said. Slett criticized the lack of formal consultation regarding renewed pipeline proposals. Bill C-5 was rushed through Parliament in just two weeks, and a meeting between Carney and First Nations leaders from across Canada last week was allotted just a few hours. 'There's been a lot of talk about us without talking to us,' she said. She said she learned about energy proposals through the news rather than direct government engagement. The open letter invites Carney to visit the north coast to see why the tanker moratorium remains vital and to consider how a path forward without an oil pipeline can benefit the region. Slett said her communities prefer discussion and collaboration but remain firm in their opposition. 'Court challenges and direct action would always be a last resort,' she said. 'We've built relationships with provincial and federal partners that we want to maintain, but we won't support new pipelines. The tanker ban must stand.' Sonal Gupta / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada's National Observer Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
National Observer
23-07-2025
- Politics
- National Observer
Coastal First Nations call on Carney to uphold oil tanker ban
Indigenous leaders on British Columbia's north coast are calling on the federal government to hold out against pressure from Alberta and industry to reverse the west coast oil export ban. On Tuesday, the Coastal First Nations, a group of nine First Nations along the north and central coast of BC and Haida Gwaii, wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney. The group urged the government to uphold Bill C-48, known as the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. Since 2019, this law has prohibited tankers carrying over 12,500 metric tons of crude oil and other oil products from stopping or transferring cargo at any port between the northern tip of Vancouver Island and the Alaska border, which includes Haida Gwaii, the Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. The act formalizes protections that Indigenous communities and environmentalists have been seeking since the 1970s. It effectively bans crude oil supertankers from one of the world's most pristine cold-water marine ecosystems, home to whale habitats, wild salmon, seabirds and ancient rainforests. Exports through the Juan de Fuca Strait are allowed, meaning the ban has not interfered with the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. The controversy comes as Carney said in a recent statement that a new bitumen pipeline to BC's north coast is 'highly, highly likely.' His remark aligns with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and federal Conservative MPs push to lift the tanker ban. Smith has specifically called for faster federal approvals for pipeline projects and an exemption at the Port of Prince Rupert to allow oil exports to Asia. But Marilyn Slett, president of the Coastal First Nations and chief councillor of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council, said oil tankers are a 'non-starter' for her community. 'An oil tanker project is not something we can ever provide consent to,' she said. 'Our communities rely on healthy oceans and ecosystems for our livelihood and culture. Reversing or weakening this legislation would put everything our communities depend on at risk.' Marilyn Slett, president of the Coastal First Nations and chief councillor of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council, said oil tankers are a 'non-starter' for her community. The tanker ban was instituted after more than a decade marked by energetic opposition to pipelines to the West Coast. The Northern Gateway pipeline, first proposed by Enbridge in 2002, was ultimately halted in 2016 after more than 130 First Nations publicly opposed the project and courts ruled that consultations had been inadequate. Slett called the decision a major win for Indigenous rights and protection of coastal areas, and said any new talks should not repeat old mistakes. Marilyn Slett, president of Coastal First Nations and Heiltsuk chief councillor, signs an open letter urging Prime Minister Carney to uphold the north coast oil tanker ban. Indigenous leaders have come out against crude oil tankers but have been more accepting of other types of ships, especially those carrying liquefied natural gas (LNG). By 2030, as many as 600 LNG vessels are expected to pass through their waters — activities accommodated through lengthy engagement and approval processes with communities, said Danielle Shaw, chief councillor of the Wuikinuxv Nation and a board member of the Central Coast Indigenous Resource Alliance. 'We're open to discussing projects that will be sustainable and responsible and can strengthen the economy of Canada and British Columbia,' Shaw said. 'But there's strong opposition to oil tankers on this coast because of the impacts it would have for our communities directly.' Slett noted that with 175 LNG tankers already passing through coastal channels this year and more expected, the impact on the ecosystem is significant. 'This is substantial, and those have cumulative effects on the ecosystem. They are in place and serving as projects for British Columbia and other communities. This [oil tankers] is something we cannot add … it's not something we would support.' The risks from oil spills are considered too great. 'When it comes to allowing oil tankers on our coast, it wouldn't be if something were to happen, it would be when something happens,' Shaw said. Slett criticized the lack of formal consultation regarding renewed pipeline proposals. Bill C-5 was rushed through Parliament in just two weeks, and a meeting between Carney and First Nations leaders from across Canada last week was allotted just a few hours. 'There's been a lot of talk about us without talking to us,' she said. She said she learned about energy proposals through the news rather than direct government engagement. The open letter invites Carney to visit the north coast to see why the tanker moratorium remains vital and to consider how a path forward without an oil pipeline can benefit the region. Slett said her communities prefer discussion and collaboration but remain firm in their opposition. 'Court challenges and direct action would always be a last resort,' she said. 'We've built relationships with provincial and federal partners that we want to maintain, but we won't support new pipelines. The tanker ban must stand.'
Edmonton Journal
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Edmonton Journal
Opinion: Pipelines or tankers in B.C.? The answer is still no
Article content It's hard to believe that an oil pipeline to cross through British Columbia's northwest is once again being pushed by the premier of Alberta and considered by the prime minister of Canada. Article content Unlike when Enbridge Northern Gateway first proposed an oilsands pipeline that would introduce oil supertankers to B.C.'s north coast for the first time nearly two decades ago, today such a pipeline would depart from the rebuilt community of Fort McMurray, past the scorched iconic town of Jasper, passing north of the decimated town of Lytton, and crossing hundreds of salmon creeks and rivers facing drought. While much has changed, much remains the same — many of us residents are still here, and we still say no. Article content Article content Article content Enbridge's proposal produced one of the greatest public outcries in northern B.C. It united a broad cross-section of the region: First Nations and municipalities, loggers and tree huggers, conservative and progressive voters. Wild salmon are what unites us in the northwest. It is pretty remarkable to be able to fish for and land a salmon or steelhead within the town boundaries of Terrace, Hazelton, and Smithers, as well as many of the Indigenous communities along the Skeena watershed. Article content Article content British Columbians, especially in the northwest, love this place and the healthy freshwater ecosystems and wild salmon that sustain us. When these are threatened, we join forces and defend our assets, just like we did to stop Northern Gateway. Article content In March 2010, Coastal First Nations announced a ban on crude oil tankers in the Pacific North Coast under their Indigenous laws. Following this was the Save the Fraser Declaration in December 2010, that banned oil pipelines and oilsands projects from crossing the Fraser watershed. Well over 100 First Nations ultimately signed this declaration. Between 2012 and 2013, the National Energy Board heard from more than 1,400 northwestern B.C. residents who registered to express their views on the risky project, with only two voicing their support. Article content Article content Several municipalities, unions, and businesses opposed Enbridge's proposal in defence of the economies, cultures and ecosystems we rely on. Article content In 2019, the federal government enacted Bill C-48, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, which prohibits oil tankers larger than 12,500 tonnes carrying crude or persistent oil from B.C.'s north coast — the same coast that is home to the Great Bear Rainforest, newly created and planned Marine Protected Areas, and coastal communities reliant on seafood and tourism. This bill solidified the 1972 moratorium on oil tanker imports and the 1985 Voluntary Exclusion Zone that has kept large oil tankers off this part of the coast for decades. Article content What has changed since Bill C-48? The provincial and federal governments have enacted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Climate change has caused warming of over 1.6 degrees in this region, with droughts and wildfires happening more frequently and severely. The Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline was built with tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to increase oilsands exports and is still not operating at full capacity. Donald Trump has slapped tariffs on Canadian goods and energy, and threatens to take over our country, spurring reckless fast-tracking legislation.
Yahoo
24-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
GREEN: Carney should finally cut Trudeau-era red tape
As pretty much everyone knows, Canada has a building problem. Whether it's provincial building of housing or infrastructure, or national building of highways, pipelines or energy production facilities, Canada can seemingly not get things built no matter how many companies and investors propose projects (or how many newspaper opinion columns or public opinion polls show that people want things built). The government of Prime Minister Mark Carney appears to recognize this problem and recently introduced Bill C-5. Of course, appearances can be deceiving. Superficially, a lot of what's in the proposed bill sounds good: Facilitating free trade and labour mobility inter-provincially and ostensibly streamlining government's regulatory powers to facilitate the timely building of projects deemed to be in Canada's national interests. Who could be against that? Per the government, the 'Bill seeks to get projects in the national interest built by focusing on a small number of executable projects and shifting the focus of federal reviews from 'whether' to build these projects to 'how' to best advance them.' Again, looks great, but even a cursory reading by a legal layman reveals the fact that, in reality, little has changed regarding the approval of major building projects in Canada. Just as it is now, under the new regime, the prime minister's office (and designees elsewhere in government) ultimately have carte blanche in deciding whether projects of significance can be built in Canada, under what timeline and based on whatever criteria they deem appropriate. All that is better than nothing, of course, but words (particularly political words) are cheap and actions more valuable. If Carney really wants to show he's committed to 'Building Canada,' he'd ceremoniously defenestrate Bill C-48 (a.k.a. the 'Tanker Ban Bill'), which came into effect last year under the Justin Trudeau government and changed tanker regulations off British Columbia's northern coast, torpedoing any prospects of building oil export pipelines on Canada's west coast. He could also scrap the cap on Canadian oil and gas-related greenhouse gas emissions (introduced by the Trudeau government in 2024) and regulations (also introduced in 2024) for methane emissions in the oil and gas sector, both of which will almost inevitably raise costs and curtail production. Finally, the prime minister could axe so-called 'Clean Electricity Regulations' that will likely drive electricity rates through the roof while ushering in an age of less-reliable electricity supply and less building of conventional energy generation from natural gas, a fuel far more reliable than Canada's fickle winds and often-tepid sunlight. By driving up energy costs across Canada and through the entire chain of production and service economies, these regulations (again, enacted by the Trudeau government) will make it more expensive to build anything anywhere in Canada. Carney has made some nice noises, seemingly recognizing that Canada has a building problem, particularly regarding energy projects. Bill C-5 makes equally nice (yet ill-defined) noises about regulatory reform in the energy and natural resource sectors. However, Canada doesn't have a shortage of nebulous government pronouncements; it has an overdose of regulatory restrictions that prevent building in Canada. He should show real seriousness and eliminate the raft of Trudeau-era red tape stifling growth and development in Canada. And sooner is better than later. Canada's biggest economic competitors (not only the United States) are not sitting on their red-taped hands watching their economies decline. Kenneth Green is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute
Canada Standard
15-06-2025
- Politics
- Canada Standard
4 ways to support victims
Tough-on-crime rhetoric is reshaping bail laws to correct a perceived imbalance that "tips the scales in favour of the criminals against the victims." But do these changes reflect what victims actually want and need? We argue that victims are positioned as both "sword and shield" in bail reform debates - as a sword, to advocate for more restrictive laws, and as a shield, to defend those laws from criticism. Victims have been a central focus of those arguing in favour of changes to the bail system as they suggest a need to "crack down with tougher rules" to "protect victims" and to stop turning "loose the most violent, rampant criminals into our communities to destroy our families." These concerns culminated in the passage of the federal government's Bill C-48, which introduced additional reverse-onus provisions - shifting the burden onto the accused to demonstrate why they should be released as opposed to the Crown - in cases involving weapons and repeat intimate partner violence. Largely absent from these discussions is the possibility that more restrictive measures may actually have negative consequences for victims. In cases of intimate partner violence, for instance, dual charging policies - when both parties involved in a domestic incident are charged with an offence, even when one person may be primarily the victim and the other primarily the aggressor - risks criminalizing and incarcerating women pre-trial. These victims are also disproportionately Indigenous, Black and racialized. This risks deepening systemic inequalities rather than providing meaningful protection for survivors. Furthermore, victims may hesitate to call the police, knowing that doing so may result in indeterminate detention before trial. Expanding reverse-onus provisions could also lead to false guilty pleas to avoid pre-trial detention. While media coverage on victims' experiences at bail hearings is emotionally compelling and expedient, it does not necessarily reflect what victims want with any accuracy. Certainly, some victims view the bail system as a slap in the face. Others call for a stronger social safety net to address the root causes of crime. Read more: The grieving mother of a murdered teen pleads for a stronger social safety net Our preliminary research exploring how victims are presented in news media amid bail proceedings supports other evidence that victims' voices are often used strategically by politicians and lobbyists to amplify concerns about public safety. News media can be an effective tool to provide education about the causes and consequences of victimization. When it comes to bail, however, victims are often characterized as "ideal types" - people who were subjected to severe violence at the hands of a stranger while engaging in "respectable" activities at the time of the offence. In reality, victims represent a diverse group, with a wide range of needs, identities and experiences that are not always captured in media coverage or political debates. Prior research focuses on the rights of the accused concerning bail reform, yet pre-trial decisions are a pivotal moment for crime victims. They can determine whether those accused of crimes are detained or released with conditions. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights stipulates victims have the right to be informed of case matters, to express their views and to have their perspectives considered at all stages of the legal process, including at bail. During bail proceedings, justices must record that they have considered victim safety and security when imposing conditions, and victims may receive a copy of a bail order upon request. In practice, however, victims are rarely consulted on how the release of an accused may affect their safety, and are often left unaware of bail outcomes. That's because there's no legal requirement for police or Crown attorneys to inform them. While programs are available to support victims during the pre-trial phase - such as those offered by Victims Services and Victim/Witness Assistance - access can vary widely across jurisdictions. We offer four strategies to create more responsive and equitable bail processes to better support victims: Throughout the criminal legal system, victims' voices are frequently ignored, disbelieved or dismissed. Too often, victims are excluded from the very policy decisions made in their name. While high-profile bail cases tend to dominate media coverage, policy on criminal and legal matters must be guided by evidence, not headlines. Without broader systemic reform, legislation will remain an important but insufficient tool for upholding victims' rights and community safety.
