Connect with us

Canadian Energy Centre

Why Canada’s proposed oil and gas emissions cap goes against UNDRIP and the rights of Indigenous people

Published

6 minute read

Indigenous Resource Network executive director John Desjarlais (centre), with Justin Bourque, president of Âsokan Generational Developments, and Shelby Kennedy, community and Indigenous relations advisor with Enbridge. Photo courtesy Indigenous Resource Network

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

Q&A with John Desjarlais, executive director of the Indigenous Resource Network

The Indigenous Resource Network (IRN) is pushing back on Canada’s proposed framework to cap emissions from the oil and gas sector.  

IRN executive director John Desjarlais says the proposal directly contradicts Canada’s support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP). 

He says the plan would cap opportunity for Indigenous communities as more take on ownership positions in major energy projects from oil and gas pipelines to liquefied natural gas terminals and carbon capture and storage projects. 

Here’s what Desjarlais told CEC.  

CEC: From the perspective of Indigenous communities across Canada who are involved in natural resources development, what’s your take on the federal government’s proposed oil and gas emissions cap?  

John Desjarlais: There’s a lot of confidence that it will curtail production as well, and obvious concern that it’s going to mean less opportunity.  

We’ve heard from communities that are saying we’re involved already in emissions reduction. There are communities that just want to advance their opportunities in that space. And it’s at a time when there’s probably the greatest appetite for Indigenous involvement, not just in ownership, but advanced business development and procurement. [It could] mean less jobs, less procurement, less ownership opportunity, less investment. 

There are concerns that these impacts are not being heavily understood, measured, contemplated or considered in terms of the policy development and implementation. 

CEC: How does being involved in oil and gas development benefit Indigenous communities?  

JD: There’s a suite of benefits that are coming from increased engagement, and it’s much deeper than just jobs. 

Communities are now jumping into revenue generating assets where they’re creating immediate cash flow, which is allowing them to start to self-determine and invest back into their community either through economic development or through infrastructure programming. 

The other side to it is just the capacity that comes from being involved as an owner. Indigenous business and community leaders are being exposed to the requirements and the acumen needed to successfully participate in the ownership of decision making. That’s accelerating the development of the acumen and capacity of different indigenous communities at greater rates 

CEC: How many communities would you estimate are now participating at this level?  

JD: There’s probably upwards directly of at least 100 different communities now. There are double-digit communities that are involved in at least four or five different deals that are directly involved in the ownership and the benefit side, and then there’s cascading involvement of all the surrounding communities through procurement opportunities and employment. It’s growing quite quickly. 

CEC: Why do you say the proposed emissions cap contradicts the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People?  

It’s a policy that’s created to achieve certain goals. Creating those types of targets without Indigenous oversight – not just input, [but] oversight and ownership – is problematic because it contradicts the UNDRIP action plan in terms of stepping out of the way of affording Indigenous peoples and communities the ability to self-determine; to invest where they want to invest, and to grow how they want to grow. 

We hear a lot of community leaders say, ‘we know what’s best for our territories.’ To have policy that limits our ability to make the decisions we want to make in regard to environmental and economic sustainability is a challenge. 

CEC: What would you like to see happen?  

JD: It’s a little hard to roll back and involve communities in a total redesign, but at least if we saw an understanding that there’s certainly going to be an economic impact. If there’s a production cap aspect to it, there’s going to be an economic impact to those Indigenous communities that have established livelihoods and revenue streams.  

There’s the sentiment that if the government truly is advancing this in the direction that they are, then would they consider omission of Indigenous activity so they can continue advancing their economic interests and growth? 

Ideally, [there would be] a policy that’s created in line with UNDRIP that works for communities, industries and governments in their goals. 

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

Canadian Energy Centre

First Nations in Manitoba pushing for LNG exports from Hudson’s Bay

Published on

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

NeeStaNan project would use port location selected by Canadian government more than 100 years ago

Building a port on Hudson’s Bay to ship natural resources harvested across Western Canada to the world has been a long-held dream of Canadian politicians, starting with Sir Wilfred Laurier.

Since 1931, a small deepwater port has operated at Churchill, Manitoba, primarily shipping grain but more recently expanding handling of critical minerals and fertilizers.

A group of 11 First Nations in Manitoba plans to build an additional industrial terminal nearby at Port Nelson to ship liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe and potash to Brazil.

Courtesy NeeStaNan

Robyn Lore, a director with project backer NeeStaNan, which is Cree for “all of us,” said it makes more sense to ship Canadian LNG to Europe from an Arctic port than it does to send Canadian natural gas all the way to the U.S. Gulf Coast to be exported as LNG to the same place – which is happening today.

“There is absolutely a business case for sending our LNG directly to European markets rather than sending our natural gas down to the Gulf Coast and having them liquefy it and ship it over,” Lore said. “It’s in Canada’s interest to do this.”

Over 100 years ago, the Port Nelson location at the south end of Hudson’s Bay on the Nelson River was the first to be considered for a Canadian Arctic port.

In 1912, a Port Nelson project was selected to proceed rather than a port at Churchill, about 280 kilometres north.

The Port Nelson site was earmarked by federal government engineers as the most cost-effective location for a terminal to ship Canadian resources overseas.

Construction started but was marred by building challenges due to violent winter storms that beached supply ships and badly damaged the dredge used to deepen the waters around the port.

By 1918, the project was abandoned.

In the 1920s, Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie King chose Churchill as the new location for a port on Hudson’s Bay, where it was built and continues to operate today between late July and early November when it is not iced in.

Lore sees using modern technology at Port Nelson including dredging or extending a floating wharf to overcome the challenges that stopped the project from proceeding more than a century ago.

Port Nelson, Manitoba in 1918. Photo courtesy NeeStaNan

He said natural gas could travel to the terminal through a 1,000-kilometre spur line off TC Energy’s Canadian Mainline by using Manitoba Hydro’s existing right of way.

A second option proposes shipping natural gas through Pembina Pipeline’s Alliance system to Regina, where it could be liquefied and shipped by rail to Port Nelson.

The original rail bed to Port Nelson still exists, and about 150 kilometers of track would have to be laid to reach the proposed site, Lore said.

“Our vision is for a rail line that can handle 150-car trains with loads of 120 tonnes per car running at 80 kilometers per hour. That’s doable on the line from Amery to Port Nelson. It makes the economics work for shippers,” said Lore.

Port Nelson could be used around the year because saltwater ice is easier to break through using modern icebreakers than freshwater ice that impacts Churchill between November and May.

Lore, however, is quick to quell the notion NeeStaNan is competing against the existing port.

“We want our project to proceed on its merits and collaborate with other ports for greater efficiency,” he said.

“It makes sense for Manitoba, and it makes sense for Canada, even more than it did for Laurier more than 100 years ago.”

Continue Reading

Canadian Energy Centre

Why nation-building Canadian resource projects need Indigenous ownership to succeed

Published on

Chief Greg Desjarlais of Frog Lake First Nation signs an agreement in September 2022 whereby 23 First Nations and Métis communities in Alberta will acquire an 11.57 per cent ownership interest in seven Enbridge-operated oil sands pipelines for approximately $1 billion. Photo courtesy Enbridge

From the Canadian Energy Centre

U.S. trade dispute converging with rising tide of Indigenous equity

A consensus is forming in Canada that Indigenous ownership will be key to large-scale, nation-building projects like oil and gas pipelines to diversify exports beyond the United States.

“Indigenous ownership benefits projects by making them more likely to happen and succeed,” said John Desjarlais, executive director of the Indigenous Resource Network.

“This is looked at as not just a means of reconciliation, a means of inclusion or a means of managing risk. I think we’re starting to realize this is really good business,” he said.

“It’s a completely different time than it was 10 years ago, even five years ago. Communities are much more informed, they’re much more engaged, they’re more able and ready to consider things like ownership and investment. That’s a very new thing at this scale.”

 

John Desjarlais, executive director of the Indigenous Resource Network in Bragg Creek, Alta. Photo by Dave Chidley for the Canadian Energy Centre

Canada’s ongoing trade dispute with the United States is converging with a rising tide of Indigenous ownership in resource projects.

“Canada is in a great position to lead, but we need policymakers to remove barriers in developing energy infrastructure. This means creating clear and predictable regulations and processes,” said Colin Gruending, Enbridge’s president of liquids pipelines.

“Indigenous involvement and investment in energy projects should be a major part of this strategy. We see great potential for deeper collaboration and support for government programs – like a more robust federal loan guarantee program – that help Indigenous communities participate in energy development.”

In a statement to the Canadian Energy Centre, the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation (AIOC) – which has backstopped more than 40 communities in energy project ownership agreements with a total value of over $725 million – highlighted the importance of seizing the moment:

“The time is now. Canada has a chance to rethink how we build and invest in infrastructure,” said AIOC CEO Chana Martineau.

“Indigenous partnerships are key to making true nation-building projects happen by ensuring critical infrastructure is built in a way that is competitive, inclusive and beneficial for all Canadians. Indigenous Nations are essential partners in the country’s economic future.”

Key to this will be provincial and federal programs such as loan guarantees to reduce the risk for Indigenous groups and industry participants.

“There are a number of instruments that would facilitate ownership that we’ve seen grow and develop…such as the loan guarantee programs, which provide affordable access to capital for communities to invest,” Desjarlais said.

Workers lay pipe during construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion on farmland in Abbotsford, B.C. on Wednesday, May 3, 2023. CP Images photo

Outside Alberta, there are now Indigenous loan guarantee programs federally and in Saskatchewan. A program in British Columbia is in development.

The Indigenous Resource Network highlights a partnership between Enbridge and the Willow Lake Métis Nation that led to a land purchase of a nearby campground the band plans to turn into a tourist destination.

“Tourism provides an opportunity for Willow Lake to tell its story and the story of the Métis. That is as important to our elders as the economic considerations,” Willow Lake chief financial officer Michael Robert told the Canadian Energy Centre.

The AIOC reiterates the importance of Indigenous project ownership in a call to action for all parties:

“It is essential that Indigenous communities have access to large-scale capital to support this critical development. With the right financial tools, we can build a more resilient, self-sufficient and prosperous economy together. This cannot wait any longer.”

In an open letter to the leaders of all four federal political parties, the CEOs of 14 of Canada’s largest oil and gas producers and pipeline operators highlighted the need for the federal government to step up its participation in a changing public mood surrounding the construction of resource projects:

“The federal government needs to provide Indigenous loan guarantees at scale so industry may create infrastructure ownership opportunities to increase prosperity for communities and to ensure that Indigenous communities benefit from development,” they wrote.

For Desjarlais, it is critical that communities ultimately make their own decisions about resource project ownership.

“We absolutely have to respect that communities want to self-determine and choose how they want to invest, choose how they manage a lot of the risk and how they mitigate it. And, of course, how they pursue the rewards that come from major project investment,” he said.

Continue Reading

Trending

X