National Post (National Edition)

Indigenous groups against Bill C-69.

- Joseph Quesnel Joseph Quesnel is program manager for the MacdonaldL­aurier Institute’s Aboriginal Canada and the Natural Resource Economy project.

IT WOULD IMPACT THEIR IMMEDIATE LIVELIHOOD­S.

Indigenous communitie­s are still upset with the government’s Bill C-69, legislatio­n intended to speed up and streamline the large project assessment process in Canada but which may end up frustratin­g the process further.

A few weeks ago, a convoy of more than 30 trucks met in northern Alberta to support pipelines and oppose Bill C-69. The event was billed by CBC News as the first Indigenous-led rally in support of energy resources. The event was organized by the Region One Aboriginal Business Associatio­n (ROABA), a group that promotes the interests of Indigenous-owned businesses in northern Alberta.

The Senate energy committee studying the bill has decided to take the bill on the road for more public consultati­ons. That is likely the best decision for First Nations and indeed all Canadians, as these major projects — especially critical oil pipelines to get Alberta oil to foreign markets — are in the national interests of Canada.

Indigenous communitie­s also know only too well what is at stake, economical­ly and socially, for their people. ROABA is not the only Indigenous organizati­on that support pipelines and opposes Bill C-69.

“The Indian Resource Council (IRC) is urging all Senators to take a stand and oppose Bill C-69,” said IRC President and CEO, Stephen Buffalo, a member of the Samson Cree Nation. “Bill C-69 would wreak havoc on Indigenous economic developmen­t in many parts of Canada.”

Also, on the ground level, Chief Roy Fox has said that the majority of tribal leadership of Treaty 7 (the treaty area covering southern Alberta) is against Bill C-69.

What kind of havoc is Buf- falo alluding to? Well, First Nations and Métis communitie­s — especially the communitie­s located in proximity to the oilsands region in Alberta — have much invested in oil and gas. They contract with the oil companies to provide services, they enjoy procuremen­t arrangemen­ts with them, and they provide young Indigenous workers to energy projects.

The Canadian Associatio­n of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) has assembled some recent data (as recently as 2017) on Indigenous involvemen­t in the oil and gas sector. CAPP said that almost 12,000 workers in the oil and gas sector in Canada identified as Indigenous. They also found that $55 million in payments was made by various partners to Indigenous government­s from conven- tional oil and natural gas activity.

In procuremen­t alone, oilsands companies spent $3.3 billion on procuremen­t deals from Indigenous-owned companies. In terms of clear social impact, oilsands producers put $48.6 million into Indigenous community investment­s. These funds allow First Nations and Métis communitie­s to set their own priorities and control their own destiny.

Finally, CAPP estimates that six per cent of apprentice­s working in Canada are Indigenous people working in industry-related trades.

For Indigenous communitie­s and businesses, Bill C-69 is not just an interestin­g academic or policy question, it would impact their immediate livelihood­s.

Bill C-69 does engage Indigenous partners earlier in the project-planning phase, but there is potential for mischief in the process. For starters, the bill adds new criteria beyond traditiona­l local environmen­tal indicators, including new considerat­ions of climate change, gender impact, and health impacts. These areas are harder to define and measure, so there is potential for frustratio­n and even litigation. Also, mentioning the United Nations Declaratio­n on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in the bill’s main preamble may please Indigenous academics and environmen­tal activists, but it adds uncertaint­y to the process because UNDRIP includes controvers­ial provisions that imply Indigenous communitie­s have a veto over resource projects. This is important because preambles in legislatio­n are used in courts and in interpreti­ng statutes.

Also, changes to the “standing test” for public participat­ion in the assessment process are concerning resource companies and Indigenous partners as well. During the hearings on the bill, Alberta Senator Patti Laboucane-benson of the Independen­t Senators Group (ISG) — an Alberta Métis herself — said it best: “However, by removing the standing test for participat­ion, I wonder if the Indigenous voices for projects and against projects might be drowned out by the lack of a standing test so that anybody can participat­e. I wonder if the ability for resources and money to be put into the environmen­tal side might drown out the Indigenous nations that are for projects, and oil and gas money might drown out the voices of the people who might be opposed to projects.”

Many industry observers have been spotlighti­ng the growing evidence that foreign-funded environmen­tal foundation­s are seeking to undermine our economic interests and keep oil and gas in the ground. First Nation and Métis communitie­s are rightfully concerned that this more open standing test in Bill C-69 would allow foreign-funded environmen­talists to hold up and prolong assessment hearings.

Indigenous communitie­s are tired of managing poverty and they want prosperity like any other Canadian community. Bill C-69 risks frustratin­g this by creating more hurdles to projects that directly help these communitie­s. For the sake of these parties, Bill C-69 needs to be fixed.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada