Solutions sought for pipelines

The opposition to building new pipelines continued to solidify last week with more than 50 First Nations from across North America signing a treaty to work together to block future oilsands developments.

On the list of proposals it wants to halt are Energy East, the stalled Northern Gateway project, twinning of the Trans Mountain pipeline to the West Coast, the now-rejected Keystone XL development and Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement project.

In other words, anything that would increase transportation of oilsands crude.

The treaty states the Canadian First Nations and U.S. tribes will “collectively challenge and resist the use of our respective territories and coasts in connection with the expansion of the production of the Alberta Tar Sands.”

For a pipeline industry with its fair share of public headaches, this seems like another migraine — broad rejection from First Nations, as well as stiff environmental opposition and municipal resistance in Quebec and British Columbia.

But when it comes to energy development, it’s not quite so simple.

There are many conflicting opinions on what should happen next with pipelines, both within indigenous communities, various levels of governments and across the country.

“We have strong proponents, and people not wanting to see it, and strong people wanting to see it,” says Steve Buffalo, chief executive of the Indian Resource Council, which represents about 150 First Nations that produce petroleum or have pipelines on their territory.

“From what I know, statistically, pipelines are the safest way to move the product. So let’s start there. So why can’t we get these pipelines done? I hope we can talk more about it.”

Next week, the Indian Resource Council (IRC) will host a conference in Calgary it’s calling “Pipeline Gridlock: a Nation to Nation Gathering on Strategy and Solutions.”

The concept, says Buffalo, is to start a conversation about breaking the deadlock over building energy infrastructure.

Sessions next Monday and Tuesday will explore how to reconcile traditional values and energy development, the impact of falling oil prices on aboriginal communities and an examination of indigenous ownership models.

Perhaps the most important session asks: Where do we go from here?

Buffalo knows it’s a sensitive conversation as some First Nations adamantly oppose pipelines for environmental reasons.

Others, however, have their own service companies and joint ventures in the oilsands, generating revenue and creating jobs for their members.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers estimates more than 300 aboriginal companies had direct business with oilsands operators valued at nearly $4 billion in 2013-2014.

“Oil and gas and energy development really is a key to helping build their communities, houses, roads, infrastructure, rinks,” Buffalo adds.

“When we see the naysayers, that’s a tough one to talk about because nine times out of 10 ... it’s an environmental issue and it’s sensitive. It’s difficult to have that dialogue.”

The Trudeau government has promised to increase consultations with First Nations and improve the regulatory process for pipeline approval.

But the next few months will show just how well the Liberal government can juggle competing interests and find real solutions. “By and large, the vast majority of First Nations are not supportive of heavy oil pipelines and the risks attached,” says Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, a supporter of the treaty.

“However, we both know there are First Nations, individuals and communities that have made investments in these projects — particularly in Alberta — and they see this as a means of underwriting the costs of community infrastructure projects, so to speak.

“Like any society, you have different world views and different approaches to economic and business development.”

Phillip, who was arrested two years ago at a protest opposing Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain project, believes opposition is growing to oil pipelines.

He says there’s no way a project like Energy East or Trans Mountain can be modified to make the proposal more acceptable. Attention should instead turn to developing renewable energy.

Meanwhile, the industry continues to make its case, saying it respects input from First Nations but emphasizing Canada needs more pipelines as oil production grows.

“It’s just another example of the continued polarization in the conversation,” Chris Bloomer, president of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, says of the treaty.

“The world is going to need oil and the industry will work with First Nations.” So is there a path forward? Ken Coates, a professor of public policy at the University of Saskatchewan who’s studied the issue, believes First Nations participation in the energy sector is now at a critical point.

In a recent report for the Indian Resource Council, he wrote Canada “stands to pay a substantial price” in lost jobs and economic development if producers, pipeline firms, First Nations and governments can’t find a common path forward.

Projects must be feasible, while federal and provincial government must work out acceptable financial arrangements, including with indigenous communities. And rather than focusing on points of division, it’s better to find elements of agreement, he added.

For Buffalo, the fact industry groups and CEOs are sitting down with First Nation leaders is a good starting point.

Sadly, he notes, no one from the federal Liberal cabinet is attending next week’s conference — citing time conflicts — although the government is making a financial commitment to the event.

“I don’t get it. This is the test of a nation-to-nation relationship with our indigenous people,” he adds.

“We need their dialogue, that’s more important than anything.”

When we see the naysayers, that’s a tough one to talk about because nine times out of 10 ... it’s an environmental issue and it’s sensitive.