Contents Sour Gas: Alberta Stand-Off

Contents Sour Gas: Alberta Stand-off

The violence and alleged terrorism that occurred in the Alberta oil fields is a case study in the complex phenomenon of provocation, intensification, and confrontation. It is also a case study of the ability of the media and the public to ascertain the facts through the best information available. At the centre of the story is Wiebo Ludwig whose fundamentalist Calvinist community is located in the middle of farm land to which the oil and gas industries--whose activities have been considered counterproductive to the lifestyle of farmers in the area--came in search of profits. The confrontation between farmers and the oil-gas industry also involves fundamental environmental and civil rights issues and highlights the need to

examine the manner in which authorities enforce the Criminal Code of Canada.

Introduction Confrontational Behaviour Up From the Ground Principles and Provocation My Cow Just Died. I Don't Want Your Bull Reaction or Overreaction? Lawful Behaviour Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions

Other Related Videos Available from CBC Learning Does Your Resource Collection Include These CBC Videos?

Sour Gas: Alberta Stand-off Standoff at Gustofsen Lake Temagami:The Last Stand After the Gold Rush There's Gold in Them There Hills

Introduction Sour Gas: Alberta Stand-off

At 4:00 a.m., Sunday, June 20, 1999, two pick-up trucks filled with teenagers entered a yard of an isolated farm 15 miles outside Hythe, Alberta. They drove through an open gate, saw a tent pitched on the lawn, and were turning around to leave when, according to them, three shots rang out from the direction of the farmhouse.

Wiebo Ludwig, the owner of the farm, saw the events of that evening differently. He claims that the two pick-up trucks were racing around the farmyard in a reckless manner, coming within three metres of hitting the tent where four of his daughters, aged 9 through 20, were sleeping. The occupants of the truck yelled and threw beer cans at the house. According to Ludwig, someone from the farmLudwig maintains he doesn't know whopulled out a gun and shot at the trucks three times in self- defence.

The two differing stories, however, had the same tragic end: 16- year-old Karman Willis was shot in the chest and died on her way to hospital. Another teen, 19-year-old Shaun Westwater, received a gunshot wound to the arm. The communities of Hythe and nearby Beaverlodge were outraged, and some people called for retribution. Others just wanted Ludwig and his family to leave the area once and for all. For this was not the first run-in area residents had had with Ludwig, it was just the latest and most tragic incident in an increasingly hostile confrontation between Ludwig, his neighbours, and the oil and gas industry in which many of them work. It was a climactic incident in a disturbing and complex story, begun three years earlier, that exemplifies a cycle of provocation, intensification, and confrontation Wiebo Ludwig, a fundamentalist Calvinist and former minister, and his friend Richard Boonstra had moved their families to Tickle Creek farm in 1985 in order to establish a self-sufficient community separate from mainstream society. They had little interaction with the local residents because they home-schooled their children, generated their own power, grew their own food, and made their own cheese, butter, and wine. The families grew to encompass 34 members who currently live on the farm. For a time, they lived in relative peace with their neighbours. Things changed, however, when the oil and gas industry started to drill wells close to the Tickle Creek property.

Ludwig started to complain that sour gas emissions from 10 well sites surrounding his farm caused a wide range of family afflictions, including three miscarriages and a stillborn child, as well as abnormalities in his livestock. He became an outspoken critic of the oil and gas industry's practices, and many believe he, his family, and Boonstra are responsible for more than 160 unsolved incidents of vandalism, shootings, and bombings directed at oilpatch facilities over the past three years. Charges have been laid against members of both families for several of these incidents, but as of yet, there have been no convictions. Ludwig's public opposition to the oil companies has made him a pariah to many, and he claims that, because of his views, he has been a victim of vandalism, death threats, and a bomb attack. To some, however, Ludwig is an environmental crusader.

Although unique in itself, the Ludwig situation highlights the ongoing tensions between the two pillars of Alberta's economy: agriculture and oil. Like a civilian in wartime, was Karman Willis the victim of a larger social conflict?

Confrontational Behaviour Sour Gas: Alberta Stand-off

"He is the epitome of the devil. He's evil." These were some of the words used to describe Wiebo Ludwig by one of the congregation members of a church in Goderich, Ontario, of which he was the pastor before moving to Alberta. The strong feelings expressed about Ludwig have not been uncommon. Media reports about Ludwig and his protests against the gas industry have also used words like evil, pariah, and holy terror. His critics would say he has made it easy for others to perceive him as extreme in his views, inordinately outspoken, and radically unconventional. In short, he has been viewed as unduly confrontational. This story involves considerable confrontation, and like all situations involving conflict, it can be difficult determining who "started it."

"Us" and "Them" Is the clash in this news event over an environmental issue, or is it a question of judging motives and behaviour? Are people's views being challenged, or is it their way of life? Who is challenging whom? While watching the video for the first time, jot down ways in which the Ludwig family members might appear different from their neighbours.

Name Calling In conflictswar in particular"the enemy" is often vilified. Iraq's Saddam Hussein has been compared to Satan and Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic to Hitler. President Ronald Reagan of the United States even referred to the former Soviet Union as "the evil empire." It is easier to define "the enemy" when we separate "them" from "us." By making people think that the enemy is different from "us," it is easier to create opposition to them.

1. To what extent do you feel Ludwig and his family have been accurately perceived and depicted?

2. When people are perceived and labelled as "extremists," what impact does this have on their message? Is there validity in any of the things Ludwig says? To what extent do you think his lifestyle becomes confused with his message? To what extent are they one and the same?

Provocation, Intensification, and Confrontation Before watching the video for a second time, write the headings Provocation, Intensification, and Confrontation across the top of a piece of paper. Discuss with your classmates what each one of these words means. While watching the video for a second time, jot down details of events that would fit under each category. After viewing, discuss each of your entries with your classmates. In what ways are these three concepts related? Was there any disagreement within the class about where certain events should be listed? Is it possible that one event could fit into more than one category?

Follow-up Discussion How would you define confrontational behaviour in general? What behaviour, if any, in this video did you find the most confrontational? Give reasons for your answer.

Up From the Ground . . . Sour Gas: Alberta Stand-off

In the 1960s television sitcom, The Beverley Hillbillies, Jed Clampett finds oil on his swampland and instantly becomes a millionaire. Although this fantasy scenario is possible in the United States, where the owner of the land also owns the mineral rights to any oil found on the property, it is not possible north of the border. In Canada, if oil is found on your land in many cases it may not be the beginning of a dream, but rather, of a nightmare.

While reading the information below about the Canadian oil and gas industry, consider changes you think could lessen the tension between those working in agriculture and those working in the oil and gas industry in Alberta.

In Canada, a farmer, or any landowner for that matter, only owns the topsoil. Any oil and gas found beneath the earth belongs to the state. The government then leases the mineral rights to an oil and gas company in exchange for royalties, and the company sets up an oil well. The owner of the land does not have a say in the process, although he or she is compensated for the inconvenience and lost productivity he or she may incur because of the well. The compensation amounts to approximately $5000 per well.

Wells can be drilled in the middle of a farmer's field and as close as 100 metres from a farmer's house. There are no legislated limits to the number of oil wells that can be drilled in any given community. The scale of the industry is daunting. More than 230 000 oil and gas wells have been drilled on Alberta's agricultural land. In addition, 760 gas plants and over 300 000 kilometres of pipeline have been erected. Many of the pipes are old and are susceptible to leakage.

In recent years the oil industry in Canada has been deregulated, and as a result it has become even more complicated. While two decades ago, there were 70 large companies competing in Alberta, there are now more than 1200 companies drilling in the field. Critics point out that many of these smaller companies do not have the resources to resolve all of the farmers' concerns, and many of the larger companies have downsized their environmental departments in order to become more competitive. Government cutbacks have only escalated the problems. The Alberta government has reduced the staff of Alberta Environmental Protection by 40 per cent and now lets oil companies regulate their own emissions.

Although the Energy and Utility Board (EUB) was created to mediate disputes between the farmers and the oil companies, farmers perceive the board to be pro-industry, and many farmers feel intimidated by the prominent lawyers hired on behalf of the oil companies for these public hearings. As a result, farmers are becoming more and more disenchanted.

Finally, it seems that the provincial government is listening. Premier Ralph Klein has publicly acknowledged the seriousness of the issue and has promised to set up an informal panel to hear farmers' complaints. He has also agreed to institute a full-scale review of environmental standards. The oil and gas industry has also agreed to reduce flaring by 70 per cent by the year 2006. Most farmers feel that this goal is too little, too late.

The root of many of the environmental problems that farmers are facing in Alberta is the direct result of flaring. To test the volume of gas in a well, oil companies burn off large amounts of gas at more than 5000 wells around the province. These flares, which can last from a couple of hours to a couple of days, send more than 250 chemicals into the atmosphere; many of the chemicals have been proven to be cancer-causing agents.

Follow up Activities 1. Using the preliminary list you have generated of possible changes to the oil and gas industry, discuss as a class which of the changes would be the most viable. What might be the costs associated with each of these changes? Do the costs outweigh the benefits? Are some of your suggested changes not viable, for other, non-financial reasons? 2. The oil and gas extracted and processed in Alberta is used to heat the homes, run the cars, and generate the power used by much of the rest of Canada. To what extent would you be willing to pay the increased costs associated with better environmental practices in that province? What changes would you be willing to make to your lifestyle to use less energy?

3. Research the major food products grown or raised in Alberta. What percentage of the food you consume comes from Alberta? How does pollution from the oil and gas industry affect those products? Research the link between carcinogens in your food and flaring activities.

4. Write a letter to Premier Ralph Klein outlining your views regarding the practices of the oil and gas industry in Alberta. Even if you are not an Albertan, how do those practices affect you?

Principles and Provocation Sour Gas: Alberta Stand-off

In its Web site at www.greenpeace.org, Greenpeace International outlines four principles of "clean production" that the organization believes should be followed to ensure the future viability of our environment. These four principles are precaution, prevention, democratic control, and integration. When examining the definitions of each of these, consider their relevance to this news story.

Precaution This approach puts the burden of proof on the potential polluter to prove that a substance or activity will not cause environmental harm, rather than putting the burden of proof on the community to prove that harm has occurred.

Prevention Companies should spend more time and effort preventing an environmental problem from occurring in the first place, rather than spending money cleaning up or controlling the problem. One example of prevention would be to make changes in process and product to avoid the generation of waste materials rather than spending money on a fancy new incinerator to burn the waste.

Democratic Control Since clean production will affect many different parties, including workers, consumers, and communities, it is important that all parties affected should be included in the decision- making process and have access to information available. . . . As a minimum, communities must have information on industrial emissions and access to pollution registers, toxic use reduction plans, as well as full labelling of product ingredients.

Integration Society should adopt an integrated approach to environmental resource use and consumption; one that deals with pollutants transferred between air, water, and soil.

A Case Study Using the information outlined below regarding the fight Wiebo Ludwig has had with the oil and gas industry in Alberta, assess to what extent or in what ways Alberta's Energy and Utility Board (EUB) and the oil companies did or did not adhere to the four principles listed above. Prepare a written or oral argument supporting Ludwig's position or a defence on the part of the EUB and oil companies. The prepared arguments may be used as the basis for an informal debate.

When the Ludwig and Boonstra families first arrived in Tickle Creek, there was only one oil well and one gas plant near the farm. But that was all about to change. Oil companies found large pools of Jurassic and Triassic gas in the region and started to drill more wells. Between 1990 and 1997 the number of oil and gas wells in the region increased from 1200 to 2400. Ludwig's problems started when Calgary-based Ranchmen's Resources Ltd. applied to drill a well on his farm, 100 metres away from the house of one of his sons. Ludwig appealed the decision through official channels, but his appeal was denied. Ranchmen's Resources then went on to drill four additional sour gas wells just on the other side of the fence surrounding the Tickle Creek property.

The official channel open to farmers who want to appeal an oil company's application to drill an oil well on their property is through Alberta's Energy and Utility Board (EUB). Some argue that the EUB is ineffective, and that oil and gas companies are given, in effect, a free rein by the provincial government to drill where and when they want.

In 1997, only 55 of 19 551 oil and gas applications were denied by the EUB. One reason, according to critics, that the EUB is reticent to disallow oil and gas applications is the magnitude of the industry in Alberta. Sour gas is a $4-billion business, and the Ranchmen's Resources well was worth $4-million in revenues to the company and $750 000 in royalties to the Alberta government.

Potential Health Effects Hydrogen sulphide, better known as sour gas because it smells like rotten eggs, escapes from drilled natural gas and oil wells. It is an extremely deadly substance that has been responsible for the deaths of 30 Alberta oil workers in the last three decades. A 1995 study from the University of Southern California showed that continued exposure to non-lethal doses of sour gas causes some neuro-behavioural dysfunction such as memory loss. Ludwig's claims that sour gas leaks caused two miscarriages and one stillbirth within his family cannot be proven since no direct studies have tested the effect of sour gas exposure on human reproduction. There have been, however, two recent reports that hydrogen sulphides can have serious effects on the normal reproduction of cattle.

Usually the oil companies manage the emissions of sour gas effectively, but in 1991, the Ranchmen's Resources well leaked a small quantity of sour gas into the air around Tickle Creek, and the company failed to notify the residents in the area. Soon, according to Ludwig, he started to notice some unusual health effects in his livestock, most notably the spontaneous abortions in several dozen of his sheep.

In 1993, there was a major leak in the same well. This time the families of Tickle Creek were evacuated from the farm. That night, the families say they experienced severe coughing fits and bouts of vomiting. The EUB ordered that the Ranchmen's Resources well be shut down and severely reprimanded the company. Many feel it was too late and the environmental damage was done.

According to Ludwig, environmental damage continues to be a problem in and around the farm. He blames sour gas emissions from 10 well sites surrounding his farm for a wide range of family health problems. In addition, he claims that the sour gas has been responsible for the deaths of over 50 head of cattle and has wiped out 60 per cent of a sheep herd through fetal abnormalities. Many people in the region think Ludwig is overreacting, and 21 families living in the vicinity of the farm have signed a petition stating that they have not experienced any health problems.

Ludwig and the other families at Tickle Creek started keeping a daily log of well activity and related heath problems. It is now over 100 pages long. An appendix to the log contains over 300 letters written by Ludwig to various oil companies, the EUB, and several government departments. Ludwig is angry; all of his attempts to be heard through the official channels have gone unheeded. He has started to become vocal with the press and was quoted in The Globe and Mail as saying that "men in pinstripe suits" would be on the receiving end of bullets and advocating that one senior oil executive be taken hostage. In an interview for a February 1999 article in Saturday Night magazine he said that "the Criminal Code gives people the right to defend themselves with reasonable force." He also contends that industrial pollution is "a vile assault" on his children. He describes violence as "vindictive defiance."

Ludwig and Boonstra have never admitted to committing any of the 160 unsolved incidents of vandalism, shootings, and bombings directed at oilpatch facilities in the area, but Ludwig will say that he knows the people responsible. On January 15, Ludwig and Boonstra were arrested for their alleged involvement in a fire at a Norcen well site near Hythe in December 1997 and the bombing of a Suncor Energy property near Hinton, Alberta, last August. In total, they were charged with 18 counts, including 9 counts of conspiracy. They were held without bail until February 18, 1999. The trial date is still pending.

My Cow Just Died. I Don't Want Your Bull. Sour Gas: Alberta Stand-off

"People are less willing to accept the pronouncements of industry and government that everything is okay. Anyone who lives in rural Alberta knows things are not okay." Martha Kostuch, veterinarian and long-time environmental activist

Wiebo Ludwig might be the most prominent and outspoken farmer in Alberta when it comes to the issue of sour gas and the alleged negative environmental impact, but he is by no means alone in his crusade. As you read the following cases, note the similarities between Ludwig's concerns and those of the other farmers, below. If you were an oil company executive or a government official how would you react to these situations?

Wayne and Ida Johnston, Sundre, Alberta The Johnstons run a small beef farm just outside Sundre, Alberta. The farm is surrounded by more than a dozen flaring gas wells and several gas plants owned and operated by Shell Oil. In 1994, at the beginning of the calving season, a nearby pipeline carrying sour gas started to leak. Shortly after, the Johnstons lost 26 calves to irritated lungs and hypothermia. Many of the calves' hooves just fell off, and many of the cows lost their appetites and their hair. The Alberta Research Council found that the animals showed signs of neurological damage "compatible with exposure to assorted hydrocarbons in other species. . . . No consistent pattern of disease could explain the high death losses observed in calves on the ranches." A study by Shell, one that did not include autopsies of the animals, suggested that the cold weather was responsible for their deaths.

Joan Fossom, Cadogen, Alberta Joan Fossom runs a cow-calf operation with her husband just outside Cadogen, Alberta. She has been fighting with an oil company for almost a year, trying to get them to clean up an oil spill that is threatening the family's drinking water. She is frustrated that neither the government nor the small oil company responsible for the spill has come to clean up the mess. Although she doesn't agree with the tactics of environmental terrorists, she does understand their anger. "We need an organization that will take oil companies by the shirt collar and say, Clean this up.' Do we have to force our own government to protect the environment?"

Cy Skinner, Provost, Alberta In 1993, Cy Skinner went to the Energy and Utility Board (EUB) to prove that gas leaks near his dairy farm had been responsible for the death of some of his cattle and had reduced milk production by 35 per cent. Although he was successful with his suit, the whole process cost him $200 000. The oil company involved cleaned up the gas leak but has not reimbursed him for any of the costs associated with the suit, the lost cattle, or his reduced milk production.

Bill and John Bobock, Edmonton, Alberta By all accounts, brothers Bill and John Bobock are ideal farmers. They have received awards for their treatment of animals and have a reputation with farm hands as being great employers. Their farm just north of Edmonton has been in the family for three generations and is said to be exceptionally well-run. In 1991, after a well just south of their property flared up, they started to notice that their dairy cows were starting to abort. Other cows were giving birth to twin calves at an alarming rate. This is bad news for a dairy farmer since female twin calves are almost always sterile. By 1993, 32 cows had to be replaced. Although the health of the cows is a major worry for the brothers, it does not compare to the human costs. Bill's wife, Phyllis, was just diagnosed with a low-grade lymphoma.

Wayne Roberts, Bowden, Alberta In October 1998, Wayne Roberts, a rancher near Bowden, was charged with killing Patrick Kent, a Calgary oil executive. Roberts had been embroiled in a two-year dispute with Kent's company, KB Resources, over a contaminated well site situated on Roberts' ranch. Kent was shot when he came onto Roberts' land to inspect the contaminated well. Roberts, who did not have a criminal record at the time, was charged with first-degree murder. A dozen Alberta farmers set up a defence fund for Roberts, which could be an indication of just how much sympathy other farmers feeling for his predicament

Follow-up activities

1. Of all the oil companies, Alberta Energy Company (AEC), the company that owns most of the wells surrounding Ludwig's farm, has experienced the greatest number of losses, approximately $2-million, as a result of vandalism or what some call environmental terrorism. It has issued several responses to address the concerns of citizens and to criticize the terrorist actions of environmental extremists. Examine these responses at AEC's Web site at www.aec.ca/Aechome.htm. Pay close attention to the report "50 per cent Reduction in Solution Gas Flaring" from March 4, 1999, and the September 17, 1998, news release "With a Gas Plant as your Neighbour." To what extent do you think these reports answer the concerns of farmers? Do you think AEC has shown corporate responsibility in caring for the environment?

2. With reference to Phyllis Bobock's comment quoted above, do you believe that Ludwig has been effective in gaining the attention of government and oil companies? Have his actions been justified?

Reaction or Overreaction? Sour Gas: Alberta Stand-off

The struggle between farmers and the oil and gas industry in Alberta has engendered very strong feelings. Many people across Canada have expressed their support for Ludwig and the families of Tickle Creek and for their right to protect their property and family from trespass and threats. The reaction of Mike, a radio caller to the Toronto-based CFRB, is typical of some. "[Ludwig's] ongoing feud with the oil industry is immaterial. These locals have pushed this guy back up against a wall, and he's simply pushing back. I would do the same thing." Nineteen out of 20 callers to John Gormley's radio call-in show in Saskatchewan were also solidly behind Ludwig. Columnist Linda Slobodian wrote an article for the Calgary Sun in which she said, ". . . It's not a popular thing to say now, but if young people stay off private property in the night, they'll be safer."

A Tragic Encounter Throughout this News in Review story, we have emphasized the cycle of provocation, intensification, and confrontation as a fundamental pattern to consider when dealing with conflict management. There are many aspects to this news event and there have been many incidents. There has been violence and there has been a death, that of Karman Willis. Her death is the subject of a police investigation, and it will be up to them and the justice system to decide how and why she died and who was responsible. As news watchers, our role is to try to understand the contextthe larger confrontationin which her death occurred.

Examine the following summary of events of the night Willis died, as they were related by the Ludwig family. In what way does this account demonstrate how conflict can move through the three stages until it reaches an unmanageable stage?

Saturday night, June 19, 1999, started normally enough on Tickle Creek farm. Four of Wiebo Ludwig's daughters, Ishshah, 9, Charity, 16, Salome, 18, and Mamie, 20, decided to take advantage of the fine June weather and sleep in a tent pitched on their property. The farm was secluded, the only access being a dead-end road. The girls said they were awakened in the middle of the night by a "very loud noise that sounded like it was right beside the tent." The girls feared that they were about to be run over by a truck. The oldest daughter decided to investigate the source of the noise, but the truck that was making the noise disappeared by the time she could get out of the tent. Seeing that the truck was gone, the sisters decided that they were safe and went back to sleep. Soon afterward, however, two trucks returned and began tearing around the property, with the occupants yelling. According to Mamie Ludwig, it sounded as if firecrackers and even gunshots were going off. The terrified girls stayed in the tent and lay down in order to avoid being shot. The girls have stated that they did not have a gun in the tent, and that they were unsure if the shots they heard were from the house or from the truck. (At some point shots were fired that killed Karman Willis and wounded Shaun Westwater.) When police eventually arrived to investigate the matter, Wiebo Ludwig initially refused to allow them to talk to his daughters.

Although Ludwig denies he had anything to do with the killing, he has said that he is unwilling to co-operate with the police in this matter in order to protect his family. He has said that he believes that if the police identify who pulled the trigger, that person would not be safe, given threats made by members from the neighbouring communities, which have been quoted in the press. A neighbour of the Ludwigs characterized this as a ploy of Ludwig's to confuse the issue. "Unless the police uncovered strong forensic evidence, they could be in a real bind. It's a very tight-knit group there, and if nobody will talk, how do you decide who actually pulled the trigger?" After a two-week search, the police uncovered four guns on the property: a .30 calibre Winchester rifle, a 7.62 assault rifle, and two .22 calibre rifles. All of the guns were loaded.

Ludwig does not believe excessive force was used in the shooting. He said his family was terrified after months of harassment from oil companies and locals. He alleged that this was the third such incident in three weeks. In previous incidents vandals stole a pirate flag and attempted to pull down a billboard that warned oil companies to stay away. The family has allegedly received numerous death threats in the past, and Ludwig himself was slightly injured when his van blew up in a parking lot in Edmonton on April 19. The police will not say if the explosion was caused by a bomb or by "unidentified explosive material in, on, or near the van."

The teens who were in the trucks on that fateful night have stated that they had no intention of hurting any of the Ludwig family but rather were out for a night of partying and joyriding. In the words of Jason Willis, Karman Willis's cousin, the teens were just "being boneheads." The police searched the trucks and have ascertained that the teens did not possess any firearms. None of the teenagers have been charged by police.

Lawful Behaviour Sour Gas: Alberta Stand-off

The Criminal Code of Canada permits a person to defend himself or herself, those under one's protection, and one's property as long as the force used to protect oneself is "necessary and reasonable" according to the circumstances. What is determined as reasonable and necessary depends on the facts of individual cases. The defendant must convince the court that he or she had a genuine fear of injury and that his or her actions were not excessive in order to ensure his or her safety. Self-defence may also be used as a defence when the person accused strikes the first blow or shoots the first bulletfor example, as long as the accused can convince the court that it was the only means available to protect himself or herself.

Examine the two cases below and suggest whether, in your opinion and based on the factual information available to you at this time, there is any similarity between them and the situation that occurred on the Ludwig farm.

Regina V. Jebsen (1997) A.J. No. 770 Alberta Provincial Court Criminal Division The complainant, Fisher, purchased an automobile from the accused, Jebsen, without realizing that the automobile had a lien against it. When Fisher found out about the lien he approached Jebsen, but Jebsen refused to return the purchase price of the vehicle to Fisher. Fisher and the second complainant, Mahoney, went to Jebsen's home to inform him of Fisher's intention of taking legal action against him. Jebsen did not answer the door, and Fisher and Mahoney started recording, in a notebook, serial numbers of vehicles parked in Jebsen's yard. Jebsen came out of the house, told the complainants to leave his property, pushed Mahoney, and took away his notebook. A scuffle broke out; Jebsen threatened to shoot Fisher and Mahoney. Jebsen argued that he needed to take these measures to stop the complainants from trespassing on his property. The courts agreed. Fisher and Mahoney were trespassing on his land, and Jebsen used reasonable force to make them leave. The threat to shoot Fisher and Mahoney was not considered serious since neither Fisher nor Mahoney believed that Jebsen would shoot them.

Regina V. Gee (1982) 68 C.C.C. (2d) 516 Supreme Court of Canada The accused and a second person were charged with murder. Their defence was that they only started their assault upon the deceased when he would not stop his attack on a friend of theirs. The accused argued that under s. 27 of the Criminal Code, he was "justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary to prevent the commission of an offence." The two men beat the deceased over the head several times with various objects until he died. Before his final beating the deceased had lunged at the accused but the accused had fled the room and the deceased was held by the accused's friend. The accused was convicted of murder, but was granted an appeal since the judge had failed to direct the jury that a defence of justification and self-defence could reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter even where excessive force was used.

Follow-up Discussion In what ways is the issue of self-defence, especially when someone dies or is seriously hurt, problematic even though provision is made for it under the Criminal Code?

Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions Sour Gas: Alberta Stand-off

1. The 1998 census conducted by Statistics Canada shows that 82 200 Albertans worked in agriculture and 88 500 worked in forestry, fishing, mining, and the oil and gas industries. How might conflicts result between those working in each of these two major sectors. What could the government of Alberta do to appease both sectors?

2. What is hydrogen sulphide? Research the effects of hydrogen sulphide on humans and farm animals. Are oil companies the only producers of this chemical compound? Are hydrogen sulphides found in your community? What, if anything, can industry do to prevent or minimize the damage caused by hydrogen sulphides to the environment.

3. No society is perfect; civilization is a process, not an event. In an ideal society, there would be no need for a criminal code. In your opinion, what do the legal terms trespass, self-defence, and necessary force suggest about human social behaviour and human social interaction?

4. What major environmental concerns are facing your community? Identify one source of pollution in your area and brainstorm actions your class can take to effect change. Implement at least one of your ideas. You may also wish to have someone come into your class from a local environmental group to discuss the sources and effects of pollutants in your area.

5. In early June 1999, Bill C-32, or the new Canadian Environment Protection Act, was passed in the House of Commons despite the protests of many environmental groups and members of Parliament. The bill went through its first reading by the Senate in August, and environmental groups were asking members to write letters to senators to ask them to reject the bill. Using the Internet, find out why so many environmentalist did not like the new Canadian Environment Protection Act and what they would like to see changed in the bill. A good place to start would be the Web site set up by the Canadian Environmental Network Toxics Caucus about this issue. It can be found at www.web.apc.org/cepa911/index.html. Write a one-page response to the group's position.

6. In an effort to gain enough evidence against Wiebo Ludwig and Richard Boonstra, the RCMP planted a bomb in a shack at one of the Alberta Energy Company's well sites, thereby hoping to give an RCMP informer greater credibility in the eyes of Ludwig and Boonstra, who were under surveillance. Anxious to catch those responsible for the many acts of vandalism inflicted on its sites, the AEC was complicit in the RCMP's activities. To what extent do you feel the RCMP were justified in their actions? You may also wish to research the McDonald inquiry that investigated RCMP activities in the 1970s, especially those relating to the FLQ crisis in Quebec. At the time, the police were responsible for burning a barn that was thought to be a meeting place for terrorists. What were the findings of that inquiry?