Pipeline protesters cross barricades on Parliament Hill - On site with Clayton Thomas-Muller

An oilsands protester explains the purpose of the protest and what message they are trying to send to the Canadian and U.S. governments. He also discusses whether protesters plan to try and get into parliament for a sit in.

CTVNews.ca Staff

Date: Mon. Sep. 26 2011 4:50 PM ET

Environmental protesters gathered on Parliament Hill have begun a planned mass act of "civil disobedience," as they seek to draw public attention to a controversial pipeline project they oppose.

The participants say they are willing to risk arrest as they protest against the Keystone XL pipeline extension, a proposed project that would seek to bring Alberta oil to refineries in the southern United States.

But the "disobedience" amounted to no more than a small number of protesters walking up to police barricades, climbing over a stepladder and immediately surrendering to police.

The RCMP said that about 400 people attended the protest, with 100 people being arrested for obstructing police officers, Sgt. Marc Menard said.

According to Patrick Moore, a former leader of Greenpeace, the turnout shows that the vast majority of Canadians support the oilsands and recognize its importance for the country.

Moore, an ecologist who now operates a public relations company, told CTV News Channel from Vancouver that the Keystone project is the best way to get the oil down to the U.S.

"How else do we get the oil to Texas? Is there a better way? I don't think so," he said.

There has been criticism that the oil should be refined in Canada, but Moore noted that's not the best option. He said that refining the oil in Canada would mean building multiple pipelines to carry the products to the U.S. for export.

"You've got to get the oil where it's needed, and this is the best way to do it."

Moore added that First Nations communities are getting $800 million in contracts from the oilsands, and the industry is also reclaiming mining sites in an effort to return the area to forest.

He blamed the heightened rhetoric about the oilsands on "misinformation" from environmental groups.

"This is all going to be reclaimed, I have seen it all with my own eyes," he said.

Earlier, CTV's Power Play host Don Martin said the crossing of the police barricades was simply a symbolic gesture of defiance.

"It's the quintessential Canadian protest," Martin said from Parliament Hill.

Martin said the taking place event on Parliament Hill "was a very quiet and well-behaved protest."

Hundreds of police were firmly in place before the demonstration began Monday, which was seen as a pre-emptive strategy against any large protests.

Police handed out flyers to protesters, which spelled out where the participants were allowed to roam, what their rights were and the duties that officers would be performing at the site.

Security appeared keen to avoid anything similar to the December 2009 incident where Greenpeace protesters managed to unfurl a banner from the parliament buildings.

Temporary fences were erected around the parliament buildings on Sunday night.

Environmentalists on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border have spoken out against the pipeline extension, which critics fear could cause a variety of environmental problems if it is constructed.

The Monday protest was expected to be one of the most public rebukes of the pipeline to date, following in the footsteps of another high-profile protest that took place outside the White House last month and involved more than 1,000 people.

The rally in Ottawa was organized by Greenpeace and other groups that oppose the Keystone XL pipeline. Other groups involved include the Council of Canadians, the Indigenous Environmental Network and the Polaris Institute.

Liberal Leader Bob Rae made brief mention of the protest during question period in the House of Commons on Monday. Rae used one of his questions to attack the government's record on environmental policy.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• tar sands
• alberta
• keystone xl pipeline
• stop the tar sands
• clayton thomas-muller

[albertabeefcowboy84]

@sensfan22

I don't really either but I trust the cons more than the libs. Don't agree with you that the cons are the worse of the worse, I'd rather have a con in power than ANY lib. However, I do agree with ya with environmental organizations fighting the battle; although not necessarily Greenpeace. See one of my earlier posts to donsjuand. I am doing my part to leave as small a carbon footprint as possible. I hope all people go through the lengths I do, otherwise, its all for naught. 

[sensfan22]

@albertabeefcowboy84 LOL im not really a Libs man either, to be frank I dont trust any of our politicians. Doesnt change the fact that the Cons r the worst of the worse. Regardless of where Greenpeace has their mandate, we need environmental organizations fighting the battle in every corner of the Earth. Greenpeace may mostly do stuff in North America & Europe but they r still doing a lot to help out the cause. To be honest the battle will always start at home 1st

[albertabeefcowboy84]

@donsjuand

I can teach you a few things about the environment. My home is one of the environmentally friendliest in the Ottawa area. I don't really drive anywhere, I typically just walk or bike. My house is heated by my greenhouse. I have solar panels on my roof which heat my hot water tank. I use low flow toilets, I use LCD lighting throughout my house. I grow much of my own food. I have 3 compost bins and I don't have much use for garbage cans since I don't produce a lot of it. Need I go on?

[albertabeefcowboy84]

@donsjuand

I don't refuse to help myself. I have spent countless hours researching this topic and if you want to actually pass your program, I suggest you talk to industry leaders and find out exactly what's going on instead of believing random people that protest just for the hell of it, and in reality, know nothing. Young people such as you are typically the first to throw trash out on the ground, smoke, and generally mess up the environment. I do so love irony.

[albertabeefcowboy84]

@donsjuand

You are 30 years old and should realize that it doesn't work that way. You should get out more, and realize that if you are proving a point, EVIDENCE is needed. You site the argument, you provide the proof, that's the way it goes. As I said, I have researched this for years so in essence I am extremely open to learning and not believing what some else says is really only for extremely naive people.

[donsjuand]

@albertabeefcowboy84 And not without reason. I am an environemental studies student who doesn't invest his valuable time with people who refuse to help themselves. You have arms, legs, computer access and the capacity to use google and a library. You do not seem open to learning, nor do you refrain from namecalling. As a result, you are on your own. After all, it is in your OWN best interest to research for YOURSELF, as I have no reason to believe my time is well spent here. Just 2 cents.

[albertabeefcowboy84]

@sensfan22

Uh, no. I follow Greenpeace and most environmental issues almost religiously. If you think the CONS lie about everything then the LIBS for you must be less than worthless because they haven't delivered a single promise in 40 years.

[albertabeefcowboy84]

@donsjuand

Doesn't change the fact that we are losing jobs and that oil can bring them back. Without the oilsands, Canada would be a lot deeper in debt that we are now and you people are trying to get rid of it, which will turn Canada into a bankrupt country of the middle ages.

[albertabeefcowboy84]

@donsjuand

Hypocritical much? I have asked you repeatedly for proof in regards to oil causing cancer and that there is sufficient alternative energy means in place right now to replace oil and everything we make from it. You have not proven any facet of your argument here. I have my proof, where's yours? Like I said, I have over 40 years of facts about the oilsands right here, so where are the life truths you apparently told me?

[albertabeefcowboy84]

@donsjuand

Like I said, I have over 40 years of research here regarding the oilsands. You are the one with skills for avoiding proof as I have asked for it more than once and you have not provided ANY. You haven't said anything with any kind of authority or proof, so why should I believe it? Hypocritical much? Where is this supposed proof that oil causes cancer? Where is the proof that sufficient alternative energy means exist to replace oil and all things we make from it?