Handmade anti-pipeline signs are seen on the side of a road in the First Nations village of Old Massett, British Columbia, Canada, on Thursday, Aug. 25, 2016. Facing five major energy initiatives in B.C., Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau will choose which constituency to abandon. He's allowed a hydroelectric dam to proceed; pending are decisions on Enbridge Inc.'s Northern Gateway crude pipeline, Petroliam Nasional Bhd.'s LNG project on Lelu Island, a pipeline expansion by Kinder Morgan Inc., as well as a ban on crude oil tankers. Photographer: Ben Nelms/BloombergBen Nelms/Bloomberg
Out of the fog and confusion created by two generations' worth of indigenous political activism, constitutionalisation of aboriginal and treaty rights and judicial decisions, some points of clarity are emerging on which we can base genuine reconciliation between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians, particularly where business development is concerned.
Such reconciliation is desirable for many reasons, not least of which is that it is the right thing to do and has been far too long in coming. But for those in the business community who are unmoved by such sentiment, here is the business case for reconciliation.
About half of all business investment intentions in Canada at any one time is destined for the natural resource sector, those mines, pipelines, smelters, mills and more that unlock the value of Canada's vast resource endowment. Almost all of that investment is proposed in regions where aboriginal, Inuit or Métis communities live. And virtually none of it can occur today unless the aboriginal people affected have been carefully consulted and good-faith efforts made to accommodate their legitimate interests.
Proponents of resource projects such as the TransMountain Pipeline expansion or Pacific NorthWest LNG project might be surprised by my statement that some points of clarity are emerging in how to make this new relationship work. The news seems full of stories of what appears to be intractable aboriginal opposition to such resource-based development.
That may be, however, because the business community has not yet caught up to what the indigenous world is trying to tell them. Look, for example, at the testimony of the First Nations Major Project Coalition with the support of the First Nations Financial Management Board (FNFMB) before a Senate committee this week. In the eloquent and elegant case laid out by a coalition representing 23 First Nations, you can see first-hand what they are looking for to be willing and indeed enthusiastic partners in development.
Four points leapt out at me from their brief:
First, aboriginal people cannot be an afterthought. They have to be full participants and decision-makers from the outset in projects that affect them and their land.
Second, things must be done in the right order. Aboriginal concerns about environmental protection must be addressed first, and that includes not just the effects of any single project, but the cumulative effects of what can potentially be numerous projects on the same territory. Only after they are satisfied that the environmental issues can and will be successfully addressed will aboriginal communities look at the economic merits of individual projects.
Third, First Nations want a reasonable share of the economic benefits of projects, not just during the development phase, but over the project's entire life, including the ancillary benefits that such projects make possible in the wider economy.
Finally, a point that weaves all the others together – First Nations are coming round to an understanding that ownership has its privileges. They see that if they want to be taken seriously in the business and financial world, if they want to be decision-makers and not just observers, if they want to capture a full share of project benefits, they have to be at the table as owners and risk-takers. They need to have an equity share in projects on a business basis. That means they must be able to borrow capital, invest it on business terms, and share the risks and rewards that come with it.
One roadblock, then, is that the mechanisms do not yet exist for aboriginal communities – encumbered by the limitations of the Indian Act, weak balance sheets and underdeveloped business capacity – to find the capital to be the participants they want to be in these projects. First Nations are already thinking about how to find access to such capital, with the FNFMB playing a vital supporting role, including in establishing high standards of business transparency and probity among participating aboriginal communities.
The institutions of aboriginal governance are another roadblock. The scale of the opportunities now opening up before some communities is immensely larger than anything they have experienced before and there is great anxiety and trepidation about how to proceed. Put that together with weak governance structures and the all-too-real risk is that a deal struck with one band council to proceed with a project will be repudiated in a band election a year later, with disastrous consequences not only for the project but for the credibility of communities as business partners.
Here too, though, aboriginal communities are aware of the problem and are seeking their own solutions, envisaging for the first time decision-making that could durably engage all the First Nations in a region affected by development.
These ideas may not be the fully formed and tested solutions we all need, but they shine a bright light on the principles on which those solutions will ultimately be based.
Brian Lee Crowley (twitter.com/brianleecrowley) is the managing director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, an independent non-partisan public policy think tank in Ottawa: www.macdonaldlaurier.ca.