Federal emissions cap a slap in the face to Indigenous peoples: Stephen Buffalo

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Stephen Buffalo

We are sick and tired of being poor and welfare dependency. We have, particularly in the past 20 years, established hundreds of companies and partnerships and trained thousands of our people for work in the energy industry. Now the government is cutting our feet out from under us again.

It’s hard to remain quiet. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has long said that relationship and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples is a top priority for his government.

And then he ignores us again. The Government of Canada is on the verge of doing it once more, this time on the emissions cap.

The government is preparing for COP28, the world climate event being held, seemingly without a touch of irony, in Dubai. The latest attempt at global attention grabbing is anticipated to be a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions which, in Western Canada, is a code for a sharp drop in authorized fossil fuel production.

Over the past four decades, Canadian governments urged and promoted Indigenous peoples to engage in the natural resource economy. We were anxious to break our dependence on government and, even more, to exercise our treaty and Indigenous rights to build our own economies. We jumped in with far more enthusiasm and commitment than most Canadians appreciate.

Well over 100 First Nations are substantially invested in oil and gas production as employees, employers, partners and equity participants. Dozens more have approved pipeline construction across their traditional lands. Many more have solid investments in oil and gas development and infrastructure. And we seek a greater and more meaningful role.

Of course, we do not support unchecked exploitation of natural resources. We insist on careful attention to environmental protection and remediation. And we expect and deserve fair compensation for the extraction of oil and gas from our lands. We are sick and tired of being poor and welfare dependency. We have, particularly in the past 20 years, established hundreds of companies and partnerships and trained thousands of our people for work in the energy industry.

Now the government is cutting our feet out from under us again. Over the past decade, Ottawa slowed pipeline development, passed legislation that hampered resource development, imposed increasingly strict controls on fossil fuel development, and created new levies and taxes to thwart our efforts.

They did all they could to shame the industry that, more than any other, sustains Canadian prosperity. Rapid population growth, manufacturing and urban sprawl, all major contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, have been largely untouched.

And now, in a bid to make Canada look ecologically virtuous on the world stage, the Liberal government is poised to impose further restrictions on the oil and gas sector. This is happening as Indigenous engagement, employment and equity investment is growing and at a time when our communities have had their first taste of real and sustainable prosperity since the newcomers killed off all the buffalo. Thanks for nothing.

We are astonished by Canada’s seemingly limited understanding of the role of oil and gas in Canadian prosperity. We get — and embrace — the concern about climate change and emissions. We support logical, collectively developed measures that will contribute to a reduction in Canada’s ecological impacts. But let us do this with our eyes wide open and by looking at all possible ways of meeting our climate targets. Norway gets little pushback for major expansions of its oil production; Canada, ever and undeservedly the global environmental doormat, takes intense criticism while operating one of the most environmentally sound and regulated energy sectors in the world.

All of Canada will pay a big price for our faux stewardship of the country’s remarkable energy resources. The federal government, wrestling with growing debt and staggering interest payments, collects billions annually in oil and gas revenues. The three western provinces contribute billions to federal equalization payments, with Quebec receiving the largest share.

But the western contribution earns little sympathy from Quebec, which stopped discussion of the Energy East pipeline in its tracks, closing off a new market for Canadian producers and retaining Eastern Canada’s dependence on imported oil. We are still waiting for a national “thank you” for access to the resources and the cash harvested from our oil and gas-rich lands.

It is fair to say that Canadians and the national government do not understand the seething anger building up in our communities. I know that I am not the only one who is truly upset. We followed government signals and found our feet economically in the past two decades. We created a space for ourselves in an industry that is fundamental to Canadian prosperity.

Indigenous people demonstrated their entrepreneurial skills and their ability to invest in both community development and long-term wealth creation keeping in mind both our present and future generations. The government seems willing to overturn our carefully won opportunities and prosperity, without the courtesy of full conversation acting as a colonial power.

Indigenous people have been betrayed many times over the last 200 years, but the most recent betrayals always hurt the most. We thought Canada had turned the corner in its respect for Indigenous peoples and our rights. Watch carefully over the next few days. If the prime minister talks about emissions controls, he really means production rollbacks. This is a slap in the face of Indigenous peoples.

Stephen Buffalo is a proud member of the Samson Cree Nation. He is president and CEO of the Indian Resources Council of Canada, chair of the board of directors of Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation, a senior fellow at the MacDonald Laurier Institute, and the first ever Indigenous governor of the Canadian Energy Executive Association.

Up Next

Danielle Smith slams Trudeau’s methane emissions rules as ‘unrealistic,’ ‘unconstitutional’

Don't Miss

Spending sprees by governments across Canada help fuel inflation and high interest rates

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy Outline Sweeping Plan to Cut Federal Regulations And Staffing

Energy / 4 hours ago

What does a Trump presidency means for Canadian energy?

armed forces / 4 hours ago

Judge dismisses Canadian military personnel’s lawsuit against COVID shot mandate

Energy

What does a Trump presidency means for Canadian energy?

Published on November 20, 2024

Todayville

From Resource Works

Heather-Exner Pirot of the Business Council of Canada and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute spoke with Resource Works about the transition to Donald Trump’s energy policy, hopes for Keystone XL’s revival, EVs, and more.

Do you think it is accurate to say that Trump’s energy policy will be the complete opposite of Joe Biden’s? Or will it be more nuanced than that?

It’s more nuanced than that. US oil and gas production did grow under Biden, as it did under Obama. It’s actually at record levels right now. The US is producing the most oil and gas per day that any nation has ever produced in the history of the world.

That said, the federal government in the US has imposed relatively little control over production. In the absence of restrictive emissions and climate policies that we have in Canada, most of the oil production decisions have been made based on market forces. With prices where they’re at currently, there’s not a lot of shareholder appetite to grow that significantly.

The few areas you can expect change: leasing more federal lands and off shore areas for oil and gas development; rescinding the pause in LNG export permits; eliminating the new methane fee; and removing Biden’s ambitious vehicle fuel efficiency standards, which would subsequently maintain gas demand.

I would say on nuclear energy, there won’t be a reversal, as that file has earned bipartisan support. If anything, a Trump Admin would push regulators to approve SMRs models and projects faster. They want more of all kinds of energy.

Is Keystone XL a dead letter, or is there enough planning and infrastructure still in-place to restart that project?

I haven’t heard any appetite in the private sector to restart that in the short term. I know Alberta is pushing it. I do think it makes sense for North American energy security – energy dominance, as the Trump Admin calls – and I believe there is a market for more Canadian oil in the USA; it makes economic sense. But it’s still looked at as too politically risky for investors.

To have it move forward I think you would need some government support to derisk it. A TMX model, even. And clear evidence of social license and bipartisan support so it can survive the next election on both sides of the border.

Frankly, Northern Gateway is the better project for Canada to restart, under a Conservative government.

Keystone XL was cancelled by Biden prior to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Do you think that the reshoring/friendshoring of the energy supply is a far bigger priority now?

It absolutely is a bigger priority. But it’s also a smaller threat. You need to appreciate that North America has become much more energy independent and secure than it has ever been. Both US and Canada are producing at record levels. Combined, we now produce more than the Middle East (41 million boe/d vs 38 million boe/d). And Canada has taken a growing share of US imports (now 60%) even as their import levels have declined.

But there are two risks on the horizon: the first is that oil is a non renewable resource and the US is expected to reach a peak in shale oil production in the next few years. No one wants to go back to the days when OPEC + had dominant market power. I think there will be a lot of demand for Canadian oil to fill the gap left by any decline in US oil production. And Norway’s production is expected to peak imminently as well.

The second is the need from our allies for LNG. Europe is still dependent on Russia for natural gas, energy demand is growing in Asia, and high industrial energy costs are weighing on both. More and cheaper LNG from North America is highly important for the energy security of our allies, and thus the western alliance as it faces a challenge from Russia, China and Iran.

Canada has little choice but to follow the US lead on many issues such as EVs and tariffs on China. Regarding energy policy, does Canada’s relative strength in the oil and gas sector give it a stronger hand when it comes to having an independent energy policy?

I don’t think we want an independent energy policy. I would argue we both benefit from alignment and interdependence. And we’ve built up that interdependence on the infrastructure side over decades: pipelines, refineries, transmission, everything.

That interdependence gives us a stronger hand in other areas of the economy. Any tariffs on Canadian energy would absolutely not be in American’s interests in terms of their energy dominance agenda. Trump wants to drop energy costs, not hike them.

I think we can leverage tariff exemptions in energy to other sectors, such as manufacturing, which is more vulnerable. But you have to make the case for why that makes sense for US, not just Canada. And that’s because we need as much industrial capacity in the west as we can muster to counter China and Russia. America First is fine, but this is not the time for America Alone.

Do you see provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan being more on-side with the US than the federal government when it comes to energy?

Of course. The North American capital that is threatening their economic interests is not Washington DC; it’s Ottawa.

I think you are seeing some recognition – much belated and fast on the heels of an emissions cap that could shut in over 2 million boe of production! – that what makes Canada important to the United States and in the world is our oil and gas and uranium and critical minerals and agricultural products.

We’ve spent almost a decade constraining those sectors. There is no doubt a Trump Admin will be complicated, but at the very least it’s clarified how important those sectors are to our soft and hard power.

It’s not too late for Canada to flex its muscles on the world stage and use its resources to advance our national interests, and our allies’ interests. In fact, it’s absolutely critical that we do so.

Energy

What Will Be the Future of the Keystone XL Pipeline Under President Trump?

Published on November 18, 2024

Todayville

From EnergyNow.ca

By Terry Winnitoy, EnergyNow

The Keystone XL Pipeline, proposed in 2008, was designed to transport Canadian crude oil from Alberta to refineries in the United States, specifically to Steele City, Nebraska, and onward to refineries in Illinois and Texas, as well as to an oil pipeline distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma.

Spanning approximately 1,179 miles and designed to transport up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day, the pipeline promised significant economic and energy security benefits. However, it became a focal point of political and environmental controversy, leading to its eventual cancellation by Presidents Obama and Biden.

Here’s a brief look at its history, the reasons it should have been built, the political dynamics that led to its cancellation and will President-elect Trump revive it?

Why the Keystone XL Pipeline Should Have Been Built

Economic and Job Creation

The pipeline was projected to create thousands of construction jobs and several hundred permanent jobs, providing a significant boost to the economy. It was also expected to stimulate economic activity through the development of related infrastructure and services.

Energy Security

By facilitating the efficient transport of a large volume of oil from a stable and friendly neighboring country, the pipeline would have reduced American dependence on oil imports from more volatile regions, enhancing national energy security.

Environmental Safety

Pipelines are generally safer and more environmentally friendly for transporting oil compared to rail or truck, with lower risks of spills and accidents. The Keystone XL was designed with the latest technology to minimize leaks and environmental impact.

Regulatory Oversight

The project underwent extensive environmental reviews and was subject to strict regulatory standards to ensure it adhered to environmental protection and safety measures.

Political Reasons for Cancellation

Environmental Activism

The pipeline became a symbol for environmentalists who opposed further development of fossil fuel infrastructure. They argued it would contribute to climate change by enabling the extraction and consumption of oil sands, which are more carbon-intensive than other oil sources.

Obama’s Cancellation

President Obama rejected the pipeline in 2015, citing environmental concerns and its potential impact on global climate change. He argued that approving the pipeline would have undercut America’s leadership on climate change.

Trump’s Reversal and Biden’s Final Cancellation

President Trump revived the project in 2017, citing economic benefits and energy security. However, President Biden canceled it again on his first day in office in 2021, fulfilling a campaign promise to prioritize climate change issues and transition towards renewable energy.

Political Symbolism

For both Obama and Biden, the decision to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline was also a symbolic gesture, demonstrating a commitment to environmental sustainability and a shift away from fossil fuel dependence in line with their administrations’ climate policies.

Will President-Elect Trump Reinstate It?

Currently, there is no definitive answer on whether President-elect Trump will reinstate the Keystone XL Pipeline. His previous administration showed support for the project, citing its potential economic and energy security benefits. However, reinstating the pipeline would require navigating significant political, legal, and environmental challenges that have developed over the years.

It would also depend on the current geopolitical, economic, and environmental priorities at the time of his taking office. The Keystone XL Pipeline’s history is a complex tapestry of economic aspirations, environmental concerns, and political maneuvers.

Its cancellation has been a contentious issue, reflecting the broader national and global debates over energy policy and climate change strategy. Whether it will be reinstated remains a significant question, contingent on a multitude of factors including political will, environmental policies, and market dynamics.

That all said, re-instating its approval might be the perfect “in your face” moment for Trump to Obama and Biden as he begins his second term of presidency. We’ll have to wait and see.