ECONOMIC RECONCILIATION IS A PRIORITY AT ENBRIDGE

Energy Council of Canada

Published

4 years ago

9 minute read

ECONOMIC RECONCILIATION IS A PRIORITY AT ENBRIDGE

Building and maintaining relationships with Indigenous nations and groups over the lifecycle of our assets is essential to Enbridge’s continued success as a leading North American energy delivery company. An important part of how we do business is to work with Indigenous communities to help increase their capacity to participate economically in our projects and operations. Economic engagement ranges from providing training and employment opportunities that build transferrable skills, to the procurement of goods and services from Indigenous businesses. To tap into Indigenous communities’ growing capacity and desire to participate in contracting and employment opportunities, Enbridge has adopted a supply chain process that requires prospective contractors to include detailed Socio-Economic Plans that outline how they will include local Indigenous communities and businesses in their work for Enbridge’s projects and operations. This approach exemplifies our desire to build long-term relationships which create value for both Indigenous communities and our business.

Enbridge has long recognized that hiring Indigenous businesses supports local employment, gives us the opportunity to understand available services and talent, and helps build trust and relationships. We also appreciate the important contribution that Indigenous businesses make each year to the overall economy.

In 2019, we marked a major milestone, surpassing $1 billion in Indigenous spending since 2011 across our Liquids Pipelines and Gas Transmission businesses. This includes direct spend with Indigenous businesses as well as subcontracting opportunities for Indigenous businesses, suppliers and wages paid to Indigenous workers from our contractors.

Our Line 3 pipeline replacement project (L3RP) is an excellent example of how our supply chain is delivering on our commitment to maximize Indigenous participation. This supports our efforts to advance economic reconciliation in accordance with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action #92.

At $5.3 billion for the Canadian segment alone, the L3RP was the largest capital project in Enbridge’s history. It also represented our largest and most successful community engagement effort – including more than 150 Indigenous communities from as far as 300 kilometres from the pipeline right of way.

As of late September 2019, Indigenous spending on the L3RP totaled approximately $440 million for contracting and wages, while more than 1,100 Indigenous men and women were employed on project construction, representing approximately 20% of the overall workforce.

Indigenous monitors provided environmental and cultural perspective to the project construction team.

“The economic benefits flowing to Indigenous communities from Line 3 pipeline construction are no accident or happy coincidence,” says Enbridge’s Dave Lawson, Vice President of Major Projects. “Rather, they are the direct result of our comprehensive and proactive engagement program and the joint commitments between Enbridge and numerous Indigenous communities and groups.”

The leaders of several First Nations located along the Line 3 route note that “this economic stimulus benefited more than just the workers, it benefited the families and the Nations we represent.” They worked with Enbridge and “found ways to ensure environmental protections, and ways to secure tangible economic benefits and career development commitments for the indigenous people we represent. Enbridge listened and we believe this project has been a success for our people.”

Another community benefitting from the L3RP was the Manitoba Metis Federation (MMF). David Chartrand, President of the MMF says, “In order to work on a pipeline you have to have certification, so we got our people all ready and trained a year before the pipeline went in. We were ahead of the game.”

“I can honestly say,” he adds, “that this is one of the true success stories that we can probably talk about. Enbridge has got a blueprint for other companies if they want to use it.”

This focus on engagement and inclusion led to 58 cooperative project agreements with Enbridge, representing the participation of 95 Indigenous communities or groups.

“From the outset, we made a concerted effort to ensure Indigenous communities understood our project, specifically how they might participate and benefit economically,” explains Kim Brenneis, Director of Community and Indigenous Engagement. “I think the positive results we’ve seen speak to Enbridge’s strong commitment to inclusion as well as to building mutually-beneficial relationships with Indigenous nations.”

Beyond successful engagement, there are three major reasons for the strong Indigenous project participation and spending profile, explains Barry Horon, Director of Supply Chain Management for Projects.

“First, we worked with Indigenous communities to help create the capacity needed to participate in meaningful pipeline contracting and employment opportunities; second, Enbridge adopted a proactive supply chain process that, among other initiatives, required prospective contractors to include detailed Indigenous participation plans in their bids; and third, we implemented a labour strategy to enhance connections between Indigenous job seekers and our primary construction contractors through an online portal and the use of Indigenous labour brokers,” says Horon.

Indigenous men and women, such as Kara Pooyak of Sweetgrass First Nation, made up 20% of the Line 3 construction workforce.

Included in the Indigenous workforce were 27 construction monitor and nine liaison positions that provided both Indigenous perspectives and advice to the Line 3 project team. This helped to ensure that Enbridge’s environmental mitigation strategies – which were approved by the National Energy Board – were implemented during construction.

Another key component of the labour strategy was the now-completed Line 3 Pipeline 101 training-to-employment program. Over three years, more than 260 Indigenous men and women graduated from the program, many of whom have secured work on the L3RP.

Justin McKinney of Swan Lake First Nation is building a career in pipelining, thanks to training and mentorship he received during the Line 3 project.

Our experience with the L3RP led to an assessment of how Enbridge’s Indigenous engagement practices had evolved over the past few years. An outcome of this process was the introduction, in 2019, of our Indigenous Lifecycle Engagement Framework, which now guides our approach to building and sustaining long-term relationships across our business going forward, including for enhancing Indigenous economic participation in our projects and operation.

The framework was shared with several Indigenous nations in Canada. We are now incorporating their feedback into our planning and we will continue to seek to seek their input to ensure that our approach remains in step with their interests and goals.

Thanks to Todayville for helping us bring our members’ stories of collaboration and innovation to the public.

Click to read a foreward from JP Gladu, Chief Development and Relations Officer, Steel River Group; Former President and CEO, Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business.

JP Gladu, Chief Development and Relations Officer, Steel River Group; Former President & CEO, Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business

Click to read comments about this series from Jacob Irving, President of the Energy Council of Canada.

Jacob Irving, President of Energy Council of Canada

The Canadian Energy Compendium is an annual initiative by the Energy Council of Canada to provide an opportunity for cross-sectoral collaboration and discussion on current topics in Canada’s energy sector. The 2020 Canadian Energy Compendium: Innovations in Energy Efficiency is due to be released November 2020.

Click below to read more stories from Energy Council of Canada’s Compendium series.

Energy Council of Canada

www.energy.ca/

The Energy Council of Canada brings together a diverse body of members, including voices from all energy industries, associations, and levels of government within Canada. We foster dialogue, strategic thinking, collaboration, and action by bringing together senior energy executives from all industries in the public and private sectors to address national, continental, and international energy issues.

Follow Author

Indigenous Clean Energy (ICE) promotes collaborative frameworks for renewable energy, energy efficiency, advanced energy systems and green energy infrastructure

Business / 4 years ago

INDIGENOUS PARTICIPATION IS IMPORTANT TO THE CANADIAN WIND ENERGY INDUSTRY, WITH OVER 35 COMMUNITIES ALREADY BENEFITTING FROM WIND PROJECTS

Alberta / 4 years ago

INDUSTRY-INDIGENOUS RELATIONS: A TREND TOWARD DEEPER ENGAGEMENT

Alberta

With $15 a day flat rate, Alberta transitions to publicly funded child care

Published on January 30, 2025

Government of Alberta

Introducing $15 a day child care for families

Alberta is introducing a flat monthly parent fee of $326.25 for full-time licensed child care, or roughly $15 a day.

As part of the $3.8-billion Canada-Alberta Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement, Alberta is supporting families to access affordable child care across the province with their choice in provider.

Starting Apr. 1, parents with children zero to kindergarten age attending full-time licensed daycare facilities and family day home programs across the province will be eligible for a flat parent fee of $326.25 per month, or roughly $15 a day. Parents requiring part-time care will pay $230 per month.

To support these changes and high-quality child care, about 85 per cent of licensed daycare providers will receive a funding increase once the new fee structure is in place on Apr. 1.

Every day, parents and families across Alberta rely on licensed child-care providers to support their children’s growth and development while going to work or school. Licensed child-care providers and early childhood educators play a crucial role in helping children build the skills they need to support their growth and overall health. As Alberta’s population grows, the need for high-quality, affordable and accessible licensed and regulated child care is increasing.

While Alberta already reduced parent fees to an average of $15 a day in January 2024, many families are still paying much more depending on where they live, the age of their child and the child-care provider they choose, which has led to inconsistency and confusion. Many families find it difficult to estimate their child-care fees if they move or switch providers, and providers have expressed concerns about the fairness and complexity of the current funding framework.

A flat monthly fee will provide transparency and predictability for families in every part of the province while also improving fairness to providers and increasing overall system efficiency. On behalf of families, Alberta’s government will cover about 80 per cent of child-care fees through grants to daycare facilities and family day homes.

This means a family using full-time daycare could save, on average, $11,000 per child per year. A flat monthly parent fee will ensure child care is affordable for everyone and that providers are compensated for the important services they offer.

As opposed to a flat monthly parent fee, Alberta’s government will reimburse preschools up to $100 per month per child on parents’ behalf, up from $75.

“Albertans deserve affordable child-care options, no matter where they are or which type of care works best for them. We are bringing in flat parent fees for families so they can all access high-quality child care for the same affordable, predictable fee.”

Matt Jones, Minister of Jobs, Economy and Trade

“Reducing child care fees makes life more affordable for families and gives them the freedom to make choices that work for them—whether that’s working, studying or growing their family. We’ll keep working to bring costs down, create more spots, and reduce waitlists for families in Alberta and across the country, while ensuring every child gets the best start in life.”

Jenna Sudds, federal minister of Families, Children, and Social Development

To make Alberta’s child-care system affordable for all families, the flat monthly parent fee is replacing the Child Care Subsidy Program for children zero to kindergarten age attending child care during regular school hours. The subsidy for children attending out-of-school care is not changing.

As the province transitions to the new flat parent fee, child-care providers will have flexibility to offer optional services for an additional supplemental parent fee. These optional services must be over and above the services that are provided to all children in individual child-care programs. Clear requirements will be in place for providers to prevent preferential child-care access for families choosing to pay for optional services.

Cutting red tape and supporting child-care providers

By moving to a flat monthly parent fee, Alberta’s government is continuing the transition to a primarily publicly funded child care system. To support high-quality child care, approximately 85 per cent of licensed daycare providers will receive a funding increase once the new structure is in place on Apr. 1.

The province is enhancing the system to streamline the child-care claims process used to reimburse licensed child-care providers on behalf of Alberta parents. Alberta’s government is also putting technological solutions in place to reduce administrative burden and red tape.

Looking ahead

Over the final year of the federal agreement, Alberta’s government is working to support the child-care system while preparing to negotiate the next term of the agreement, reflective of the needs of Albertans and providers. Alberta joins its provincial and territorial partners across the country in calling for a sustainable, adequately funded system that works for parents and providers long term.

Quick facts

In line with requirements under the Canada-Alberta Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement, the flat monthly parent fee only applies to children zero to kindergarten age requiring care during regular school hours.
Children attending 100 or more hours in a month are considered full-time and parents will pay $326.25 a month. Children attending between 50 and 99 hours are considered part-time and parents will pay $230 a month.
Families with children attending preschool for up to four hours a day are eligible for up to $100 per month.
There are no changes to the out-of-school care Child Care Subsidy Program for children requiring care outside of school hours in grades 1 to 6 and attending full-time kindergarten.
Programs may choose to provide optional services for a supplemental fee. Examples may include transportation, field trips and food. Child-care programs are not required to charge parents additional supplemental fees.

Related information

Federal-provincial child care agreement

Alberta

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms challenges AMA to debate Alberta COVID-19 Review

Published on January 29, 2025

Todayville

Justice Centre President sends an open letter to Dr. Shelley Duggan, President of the Alberta Medical Association

Dear Dr. Duggan,

I write in response to the AMA’s Statement regarding the Final Report of the Alberta Covid Pandemic Data Review Task Force. Although you did not sign your name to the AMA Statement, I assume that you approved of it, and that you agree with its contents.

I hereby request your response to my questions about your AMA Statement.

You assert that this Final Report “advances misinformation.” Can you provide me with one or two examples of this “misinformation”?

Why, specifically, do you see this Final Report as “anti–science and anti–evidence”? Can you provide an example or two?

Considering that you denounced the entire 269-page report as “anti–science and anti–evidence,” it should be very easy for you to choose from among dozens and dozens of examples.

You assert that the Final Report “speaks against the broadest, and most diligent, international scientific collaboration and consensus in history.”

As a medical doctor, you are no doubt aware of the “consensus” whereby medical authorities in Canada and around the world approved the use of thalidomide for pregnant women in the 1950s and 1960s, resulting in miscarriages and deformed babies. No doubt you are aware that for many centuries the “consensus” amongst scientists was that physicians need not wash their hands before delivering babies, resulting in high death rates among women after giving birth. This “international scientific consensus” was disrupted in the 1850s by a true scientist, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who advocated for hand-washing.

As a medical doctor, you should know that science is not consensus, and that consensus is not science.

It is unfortunate that your AMA Statement appeals to consensus rather than to science. In fact, your AMA Statement is devoid of science, and appeals to nothing other than consensus. A scientific Statement from the AMA would challenge specific assertions in the Final Report, point to inadequate evidence, debunk flawed methodologies, and expose incorrect conclusions. Your Statement does none of the foregoing.

You assert that “science and evidence brought us through [Covid] and saved millions of lives.” Considering your use of the word “millions,” I assume this statement refers to the lockdowns and vaccine mandates imposed by governments and medical establishments around the world, and not the response of the Alberta government alone.

What evidence do you rely on for your assertion that lockdowns saved lives? You are no doubt aware that lockdowns did not stop Covid from spreading to every city, town, village and hamlet, and that lockdowns did not stop Covid from spreading into nursing homes (long-term care facilities) where Covid claimed about 80% of its victims. How, then, did lockdowns save lives? If your assertion about “saving millions of lives” is true, it should be very easy for you to explain how lockdowns saved lives, rather than merely asserting that they did.

Seeing as you are confident that the governments’ response to Covid saved “millions” of lives, have you balanced that vague number against the number of people who died as a result of lockdowns? Have you studied or even considered what harms lockdowns inflicted on people?

If you are confident that lockdowns did more good than harm, on what is your confidence based? Can you provide data to support your position?

As a medical doctor, you are no doubt aware that the mRNA vaccine, introduced and then made mandatory in 2021, did not stop the transmission of Covid. Nor did the mRNA vaccine prevent people from getting sick with Covid, or dying from Covid. Why would it not have sufficed in 2021 to let each individual make her or his own choice about getting injected with the mRNA vaccine? Do you still believe today that mandatory vaccination policies had an actual scientific basis? If yes, what was that basis?

You assert that the Final Report “sows distrust” and “criticizes proven preventive public health measures while advancing fringe approaches.”

When the AMA Statement mentions “proven preventive public health measures,” I assume you are referring to lockdowns. If my assumption is correct, can you explain when, where and how lockdowns were “proven” to be effective, prior to 2020? Or would you agree with me that locking down billions of healthy people across the globe in 2020 was a brand new experiment, never tried before in human history? If it was a brand new experiment, how could it have been previously “proven” effective prior to 2020? Alternatively, if you are asserting that lockdowns and vaccine passports were “proven” effective in the years 2020-2022, what is your evidentiary basis for that assertion?

Your reference to “fringe approaches” is particularly troubling, because it suggests that the majority must be right just because it’s the majority, which is the antithesis of science.

Remember that the first doctors to advocate against the use of thalidomide by pregnant women, along with Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis advocating for hand-washing, were also viewed as “advancing fringe approaches” by those in authority. It would not be difficult to provide dozens, and likely hundreds, of other examples showing that true science is a process of open-minded discovery and honest debate, not a process of dismissing as “fringe” the individuals who challenge the reigning “consensus.”

The AMA Statement asserts that the Final Report “makes recommendations for the future that have real potential to cause harm.” Specifically, which of the Final Report’s recommendations have a real potential to cause harm? Can you provide even one example of such a recommendation, and explain the nature of the harm you have in mind?

The AMA Statement asserts that “many colleagues and experts have commented eloquently on the deficiencies and biases [the Final Report] presents.” Could you provide some examples of these eloquent comments? Did any of your colleagues and “experts” point to specific deficiencies in the Final Report, or provide specific examples of bias? Or were these “eloquent” comments limited to innuendo and generalized assertions like those contained in the AMA Statement?

In closing, I invite you to a public, livestreamed debate on the merits of Alberta’s lockdowns and vaccine passports. I would argue for the following: “Be it resolved that lockdowns and vaccine passports imposed on Albertans from 2020 to 2022 did more harm than good,” and you would argue against this resolution.

Seeing as you are a medical doctor who has a much greater knowledge and a much deeper understanding of these issues than I do, I’m sure you will have an easy time defending the Alberta government’s response to Covid.

If you are not available, I would be happy to debate one of your colleagues, or any AMA member.

I request your answers to the questions I have asked of you in this letter.

Further, please let me know if you are willing to debate publicly the merits of lockdowns and vaccine passports, or if one of your colleagues is available to do so.

Yours sincerely,