This article was originally published by The Lawyer’s Daily (http://www.thelawyersdaily.ca), part of LexisNexis Canada Inc.
An authority on the rise of Indigenous empowerment in Canada’s resources sector, Bill Gallagher has been a corporate lawyer in Calgary, an energy regulator in Ottawa, and a treaty negotiator on the prairies. His latest book Resource Reckoning was published in early September. Contact him at [email protected]
It would appear that lightning does strike twice! Having already killed one approved pipeline (Northern Gateway) backed by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, now Indigenous groups have done it again to a pipeline backed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Northern Gateway was Indigenous legal win No. 231, and this one is Indigenous legal win No. 264. I called the former win the “high water mark” of Indigenous empowerment, since Northern Gateway was a fully
approved project championed by Harper’s entire front bench. It went down in flames in mid-2016. Now, just two years later, Indigenous groups make killing a pipeline look routine.
It looks bad on Trudeau, because he had campaigned on deriding Harper’s handling of the duty to consult — now he gets to eat crow. His order-in-council has just been quashed (like Harper’s).
This is why my first book is called Resource Rulers because Indigenous groups are deciding the fate of resource projects right across Canada — and redrawing the map of Canada while they’re at it.
I saw this coming. In fact, I had been holding back on my second book launch (ready to go for a month) because of this pending ruling. It’s called Resource Reckoning because that’s where we’re at as a country. We’re a G7 country at war with itself over access to resources!
Trudeau tried to bolster consultation by sending out a roving three-person commission to address any and all public concerns and deficiencies on the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline.
The Baird Panel was created by the PMO, indicating that the Liberal government intended to do it right, after Northern Gateway’s duty to consult loss. But that still wasn’t enough to get the duty to consult over the finish line. The political decision to approve the project was rushed.
Indigenous groups took the lead in fighting the Kinder Morgan pipeline because their legal winning streak was peaking, which induced the eco-activists (et al.) to line up behind them and let them do the heavy lifting. In all the merged agendas in opposition, everyone knew that natives had the best shot.
Furthermore, this same alliance had already borne fruit. In early May, a delegation of pipeline opponents descended on Kinder Morgan’s annual general meeting in Houston where they got a dissident shareholder’s motion passed questioning the sustainability of the pipeline project. The vote hit the 51 per cent threshold (likely higher) forcing management to consider its impact.
This was obviously a body blow to senior management, because it was in the immediate aftermath that Kinder Morgan launched the notion that they wanted to sell off the project.
In fact the Kinder Morgan AGM transpired on May 9, and by May 17 Canada’s finance minister was bragging that Ottawa’s involvement “wouldn’t cost Canadian taxpayers one cent.” There’s a direct cause and effect, meaning that the Indigenous-led alliance had already succeeded in ousting the proponent, Kinder Morgan, from the driver’s seat.
I maintain that that event (the ouster of Kinder Morgan) was in itself a major benchmark event in the rise of Indigenous empowerment. This milestone was accomplished in the run-up to the court ruling, meaning that strategically it had already served a vital purpose. Kinder Morgan had lost interest in spite of all its project backers and its own legal winning streak (some 17 rulings).
Today, Kinder Morgan would be relieved that it sold “lock stock and barrel” to the PMO, which explains why shareholders voted 99 per cent in favour of the sale.
I consider Canada’s ownership of this project to be a white elephant. Its only chance of getting to tidewater now is if it offers a major equity position to natives, puts them on the board of directors and includes them in the ranks of senior management. And even that’s a longshot.
The articles go behind a paywall for our subscribers. You or a colleague can try a two-week free trial here too, or I can look into an enterprise licence for your company: http://www.lexisnexis.ca/en-ca/products/the-lawyers-daily.page