Alberta
ONE RELATIONSHIP AT A TIME: THE PATH TO PROJECT SUCCESS
ONE RELATIONSHIP AT A TIME: THE PATH TO PROJECT SUCCESS
Infrastructure development is full of risks, which are managed in a number of ways. Risk management might sound cold and impersonal, but it has the potential to incent real human connections and build genuine relationships. Key risks may have leading practice on how best to mitigate, transfer, ignore or hold those risks, but when it comes to energy development across Canada, meaningful consultation and accommodation is non- negotiable. As most are well aware at this point, the Crown must consult and accommodate where Aboriginal or Treaty rights are impacted. Far from being a mandatory ‘checkbox’ in the process of project development, the undertaking of engagement and relationship-building holds the potential for mutual benefits for both the project and the impacted First Nations, Inuit, or Métis community.
Genuine relationship-building is a solid foundation for partnership on energy projects, to the benefit of both parties. This partnership can take the form of Impact Benefit Agreements (IBA) Mutual Benefit Agreements (MBA) or equity participation arrangements, among others. Both IBAs and equity arrangements have the potential to grow economic and social prosperity, but determining which approach is the best fit will be influenced by the priorities and capacity of both the developer and the Indigenous community.
In both these common approaches there are similar objectives:
- Compensation for and mitigation of potential impact
- Influence or control over project design and development
- Securing benefits for the community
- Securing social license
- Working towards consent and support of the project
- Reduced risk of opposition or disruption
- Improved financing as a result of managed risks
Both also reflect an underlying premise that it is no longer acceptable to develop resources or energy infrastructure in a manner where impacts fall to one party, and benefits to the other.
When comparing and contrasting IBAs and equity arrangements, some key considerations are the degree of potential impact, the capacity and interest of the community in the project’s development and management, the project’s term, risk tolerance of either party, and financing and funding opportunities.
Impact Benefit Agreements between a project developer and impacted Indigenous community formalize project benefits sharing. Often, these IBAs will provide some employment, training, and contracting opportunities, but the economic benefits will often be tied to the project’s degree of impact to traditional lands and lifestyle (e.g., land impacts, hunting and gathering impacts, etc.). Regardless of how well the project is performing, the IBAs will guarantee a steady revenue stream to the Indigenous community. This can be a safe bet for risk adverse councils but holds the potential for serious revenue inequity in the case where the project is successful and very profitable.
Pivoting from partnership to ownership, equity participation agreements clearly scale the revenue sharing between the project developer and community as the project success and profitability increases. If the energy project does well, the First Nation, Inuit, or Métis equity partner is also going to do well and see greater revenues. The inverse is also true. In these equity arrangements, which are becoming more prevalent in the eastern provinces, the Indigenous partner has a greater say in project operations, as they are a shareholder. It also arguably provides more security to the developers, as the Indigenous partner is a proponent of the project, and no longer a potential opponent. Both partners would look to maximize the economic benefits of the project, while minimizing the adverse economic, environmental and social consequences flowing from the project. Without focusing too much on the direct revenue arrangement, equity arrangements will often also include guaranteed or preferential opportunities for contracting, procurement, employment and training.
To be clear, in either an IBA or equity arrangement model, the duty to consult and accommodate is neither negated nor automatically fulfilled. But the relationship between developer and community becomes formalized and clearer, adding transparency and certainty to an otherwise risk-filled process.
Managing project risk is a mandatory part of project development. But the means of managing risk holds so much potential for empowerment, leadership, and benefit. Project success and economic development are not an end in themselves, but rather a means to an end – the end being healthier and more prosperous First Nations, Inuit, and Métis communities, and Canada as a whole. All the while moving the dial on reconciliation through real connections, business developments, and cultural education – one relationship at a time.
Robyn Budd was a 2019 member of the Energy Council of Canada’s Young Energy Professionals program and was a Manager in KPMG’s Global Infrastructure Advisory practice, based in the unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh nations (Vancouver). She was also the Leader of KPMG’s National Indigenous Network.
Zachary McCue is Founder of The Waabgaag Group, with expertise in renewable, infrastructure, and resource development, specializing in equity participation and impact benefit agreements. He is a proud member of Curve Lake First Nation and is based in Ontario.
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.
Alberta
The Government of Alberta’s Report on Their COVID-19 Pandemic Response: Bryam Bridle
From COVID Chronicles
It confirms big problems with public health and provides a roadmap for how to do it right the next time around; let justice and healing begin.
The Government of Alberta has released a report following an investigation into the province’s response to the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The announcement can be found in this X post from, Eric Bouchard, a member of Alberta’s legislative assembly.
The report itself can be found here.
This is a report that is well-worth reading from beginning to end. The government identified numerous major problems with the handling of the pandemic response by Alberta Health Services. It is important to note that the current government in Alberta is not responsible for how the province responded to COVID-19. That responsibility falls upon the shoulders of the previous government. Thankfully, the current government is interested in knowing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They also believe in being transparent with the public that they serve.
One of my biggest concerns from the report is identified in the opening letter where it states, “Our quest for answers was impeded by barriers, including reluctance from key stakeholders to engage with the Task Force’s mandate“. Shame on those involved with developing and implementing COVID-19 policies that failed to cooperate with officials from a sitting government that launched this investigation for the wellbeing of the public. The lack of transparency from whomever these key stakeholders are is unacceptable.
What I appreciate most about the report is that it is constructively critical, providing a path forward, that includes refocusing the mandate of public health services back onto the public as the primary clientele, as opposed to acting in the service of pharmaceutical companies. It serves as a blueprint to guide future responses. The path forward is based largely on traditional best practices that were established by truly following the science and forged in the successful management of historical outbreaks. It is highly reminiscent of the national pandemic response plans that existed in 2020; the ones that were supposed to be implemented for COVID-19 but that were thrown out within days of the pandemic being declared.
I can’t help but wonder how many lives could have been saved, how many hospitalizations could have been prevented, and how much healthier our population and current economies would be if this far more appropriate, science-based plan would have been implemented back in 2020.
This report from the Government of Alberta provides a precedent for the world as overwhelming numbers of people wake up and realize the need for massive reforms within public health.
Further, the report validates many of the concerns that a lot of people had about the response to COVID-19. The totality of evidence highlights how egregious it was to have vilified critical thinkers who simply wanted to engage in robust discussions out of genuine concerns for others and not fall victim to propaganda. Firing people who didn’t want to be coerced into having experimental medical interventions and debatable policies thrust upon them, de-licensing and disciplining independent-thinking health care professionals, and censoring experts under the nefarious disguise of ‘combating misinformation’ and ‘fact checking’; THEY WERE ALL EGREGIOUS WRONGS.
There should be fallout from a damning report like this. The gross mismanagement of COVID-19 has created a huge hot mess. The path forward starts with acknowledging this. Then we need to plot a course to navigate through this mess and thoroughly clean it up. These are essential if there is ever to be healing for all those that were victimized by power brokers that blindly followed propaganda and bought into the hatred and divisive tactics that were passionately modelled by the prime minister on down.
Building on this report, I am honoured to have been invited to speak at an upcoming event in Alberta. It is An Injection of Truth: Healing Humanity.
My talk will dovetail with this report from the Government of Alberta. The event is going to focus on the four pillars of healing. My presentation will start with ripping off the scab and exposing lies from public health agencies that contributed to a myriad of problems within the pandemic response. It will transition into providing some practical recommendations with respect to where we go from here.
Please consider posting your thoughts about this report in the comments section. Do you agree with aspects? Disagree with others? Were criticisms too light or too harsh? Were key issues missed? What do you think about the ideas for moving forward? This is opportunity to provide feedback. You have a sitting government that is showing a willingness to listen to all parties and perspectives. I will share feedback with the Members of the Legislative Assembly that I will be meeting in Alberta on March 3rd.
Alberta
The Davidson Report critiquing the Government of Alberta’s COVID-19 pandemic response finally released: Dr David Speicher
Nearly six months after Dr. Gary Davidson’s report was submitted to Premier Danielle Smith, it was publicly released quietly by the Government of Alberta on their website.
The only public statement about the report was on Eric Bouchard’s X account: “Dr. Gary Davidson’s report brings Alberta one step closer to the truth. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/albertas-covid-19-pandemic-response”. Eric followed up by saying “Alberta now has a tremendous opportunity to right many of the wrongs that took place over the last few years. We must work together to heal humanity and to earn back the trust of all Albertans.” and “I am committed to working with Albertans to ensure that the historical pain caused by the response to COVID-19 does not repeat. Thank you, Dr. Davidson, for your incredible work to get this report out. I look forward to hearing Dr. Davidson live on March 3, 2025.”
Purpose:
On November 14, 2022, the Premier of Alberta established a Task Force under the Health Quality Council of Alberta to examine the quality, use, interpretation, and flow of information and data that informed Alberta’s pandemic response to COVID-19 and provide recommendations on how to better manage a future pandemic.
This report critiques the Government of Alberta’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic between 2020 and 2022. The report addresses 9 areas: governance and flow of information, regulatory bodies (e.g. the role of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta), modelling, non-pharmaceutical interventions, masking, testing, infection-acquired immunity, vaccines, and therapeutics. The task force attempted to remain neutral and examine information on both sides of the narrative. However, there was a “fundamental lack of transparency and willingness to reveal information and discuss decisions and actions taken by AHS during the pandemic.” and the task force found that there was “a lack of willingness on the part of AHS officials to cooperate with the Task Force in our requests for data and information.” [Pg 40-41]
Chapter 6: Testing
As a molecular virologist with expertise in the detection and surveillance of infectious diseases, the task force asked me to provide information and guidance on PCR, rapid antigen testing (RAT), and serological testing for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 during the pandemic. The report provides excellent background and the methods used to test people for SARS-CoV-2.
Unfortunately, I continue to see misinformation spread about the reliability of the PCR test, including the number of cycles and “97% false-positives”. Therefore, I will be providing a deep dive into the PCR test over the coming weeks, including presenting insight on one legal case where I served as an expert witness that asked whether or not a PCR test for COVID is a “genetic test” according to the Ontario labour code. I would be happy to answer any questions that people may have.
From The Davidson Report, I would like to highlight two key issues. The first is the classification of a COVID case being determined by a PCR-positive test result driving a “casedemic” rather than a “pandemic” and the second is regarding the millions of dollars wasted on unused PCR reagents and RATs.
It is important to note the following recommendations made regarding testing (P174):
- RT-PCR represents an excellent high-sensitivity test to aid in accurate diagnoses of symptomatic people – if they are used for the intended purpose and at optimal Ct values (vs. Ct values at “high positive” cut-offs).
- Rapid tests with reasonable accuracy should not be used for screening the general population but could be used as an additional diagnostic tool, where clinically indicated.
- We recommend that future pandemic responses prioritize minimizing severe disease and mortality over extensive case detection. Specifically, Alberta should focus on developing a screening tool to help estimate individual risk. This approach will optimize resource use by directing testing capacity, which can be appropriately directed by evidence-based practices, such as testing symptomatic individuals, those whose management may be influenced by test results, and for specific surveillance scenarios.
- We recommend that levels of immunity be gauged using a multi-antibody serological and/or mucosal assay that accounts for both pre-existing immunity as well as the presence of immune cells with the potential for cross-protection.
- All tests should also be professionally administered and sufficiently sensitive to detect low antibody levels while sufficiently specific to distinguish between target and non-target antibodies. This also applies to laboratory tests used to identify specific respiratory viruses. Individual risk estimates can then be used to inform individual needs for protection either through the use of personal protective measures and/or vaccination.
- Without being linked to a set of standardized clinical criteria, we recommend against the use of PCR tests as the sole criteria for a case definition. A confirmed case should include a pre-determined profile of signs and/or symptoms AND a positive test for the infection of concern PLUS any relevant patient history and confirmed epidemiological information.
- Ensure that local surveillance data are used and interpreted when determining strategy and policy.
Final Thoughts
Regarding the report, I think that it is a very well-written critique of the Government of Alberta’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is not a final conclusive report. This is a good start to opening the door for some important deep governmental discussions that need to happen, including diving deeper into the harms caused by the COVID-19 modRNA vaccines, like the DNA contamination and the presence of the SV40 promoter-enhancer nuclear localization sequences, the vast number of vaccine-injured people, and the increased risk of turbo cancer. While I am disappointed that the Government of Alberta, namely Premier Smith, tried to bury this report by sitting on it for six months and quietly releasing the report without a proper press conference on the week of the USA inauguration I am relieved to see that the report was finally made public. The government’s attempt to bury the report shows that this is indeed a damning report and the government’s response could have been much better. However, I hope that this report will bring about government transparency and begin that well-needed conversation so that our society can indeed heal.
Healing Humanity is the theme of the next An Injection of Truth happening on March 3, 2025 in Calgary, Alberta. During the event I will be sharing on the numerous ways the COVID-19 vaccines can potentially cause harm and what can be done to heal from those harms. I will share the stage with several other prominent scientists.
- Dr. Byram Bridle who has also shared his insights on The Davidson Report and will be “exposing lies from public health agencies that contributed to a myriad of problems within the pandemic response.”
- Dr. Gary Davidson will be presenting on the contents the report by the Alberta COVID-19 Pandemic Data Review Task Force.
- Dr. Denis Rancourt will provide a deep dive into the all-cause mortality.
- Dr. David Martin will definitely be a presenter that no one will want to miss.
In closing, I encourage everyone to read through The Davidson Report and post your thoughts on the report in the comments section. What did you like or disagree with? What would you like to see different next time? I would be happy to take your comments to Calgary in March 2025. I also hope that this will be one of many governmental task forces that take a deep dive into the governmental response to the pandemic. We desperately need one for each province and at the federal level.
-
Alberta1 day ago
Province Releases Blockbuster Review of COVID-19 Pandemic Response
-
conflict2 days ago
Trump tells World Economic Forum ‘time to end’ war in Ukraine
-
Business2 days ago
Taxpayers launching court fight against undemocratic capital gains tax hike
-
Economy2 days ago
Trump’s Wakeup Call to Canada – Oil & Gas is Critical to our Economy
-
COVID-192 days ago
Trump Team names acting NIH Director, moving out senior officials who mislead the publi
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
‘Don’t Write About The Laptop’: Two Reporters Allege Outlets Killed Stories About Bidens
-
Podcasts14 hours ago
Mother of Likely Murdered OpenAI Whistleblower Reveals All, Calls for Investigation of Sam Altman
-
Daily Caller23 hours ago
Hegseth Confirmed As Secretary of Defense After Chaotic Process